https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303667 The court found the rejection of the petitioner's bid for a security services contract arbitrary and unreasonable due to an overly broad interpretation of tender conditions. It set aside the award to the third respondent and directed the authority to award the contract to the petitioner within two weeks, ensuring deployment by a specified date. The court emphasized that excluding eligible parties for seeking legal redress was against public policy and unfounded in law. The writ petition was allowed without costs. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Aug 2022 20:31:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303667 The court found the rejection of the petitioner's bid for a security services contract arbitrary and unreasonable due to an overly broad interpretation of tender conditions. It set aside the award to the third respondent and directed the authority to award the contract to the petitioner within two weeks, ensuring deployment by a specified date. The court emphasized that excluding eligible parties for seeking legal redress was against public policy and unfounded in law. The writ petition was allowed without costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303667