https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457216 Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging Clause 1.12(V) of a tender document requiring permission from a private siding owner for coal dispatch operations. The petitioner-bidder argued that involving a private party created uncertainty and unfair bidding conditions, violating constitutional provisions. The court held that judicial interference in tender processes is limited and only permissible when terms are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. The petitioner failed to demonstrate material evidence of differential treatment by the private siding agent. The court found no violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), noting the private agent's commitment to treat all bidders equally. en-us Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:53:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457216 Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging Clause 1.12(V) of a tender document requiring permission from a private siding owner for coal dispatch operations. The petitioner-bidder argued that involving a private party created uncertainty and unfair bidding conditions, violating constitutional provisions. The court held that judicial interference in tender processes is limited and only permissible when terms are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. The petitioner failed to demonstrate material evidence of differential treatment by the private siding agent. The court found no violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), noting the private agent's commitment to treat all bidders equally. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457216