https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385399 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's price proposal and the award of the contract to respondent No. 4. The court found that the authorities acted fairly and transparently in allowing corrections to both bids, in accordance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) provisions. The discretion exercised by the authorities was deemed appropriate, and the selection of the lowest bidder was held to be in the public interest. The court concluded that there was no evidence of mala fide or arbitrariness in the authorities' actions. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385399 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's price proposal and the award of the contract to respondent No. 4. The court found that the authorities acted fairly and transparently in allowing corrections to both bids, in accordance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) provisions. The discretion exercised by the authorities was deemed appropriate, and the selection of the lowest bidder was held to be in the public interest. The court concluded that there was no evidence of mala fide or arbitrariness in the authorities' actions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385399