AMR DEV PRABHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(JHAR)-2017-8-171
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on
August 16,2017
Amr Dev Prabha
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
B S MINHAS VS. INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE [REFERRED TO]OLGA TELLIS VAYYAPVRI KUPPUSAMI VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
TATA CELLULAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DUTTA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INDO MERCHANTILES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. I V R CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NAR SINGH PAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. PATEL ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD VS. G S INVESTMENTS [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKA SMOKELESS COAL IND P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K D SHARMA VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. UNIVERSAL ESTATE [REFERRED TO]
THDC INDIA LTD VS. VOITH HYDRO GMBH CO [REFERRED TO]
MICHIGAN RUBBER INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH MANDAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
ARUNODAYA MAGASWARGIYA MAZDOOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ROOTS INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. VS. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. -
(1.)Heard Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. S. Narsimha, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 & 7 as well as Mr. Ratan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.
(2.)In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following directions:
I. For directing them to award the work of NIT No. BCCL/GM/CMC/E-Tender/F-HEMM-OS/2015/312 dated 09.03.2015 for which the tender process was already concluded on 05.05.2015 at 13:03:58 hrs. in favour of the petitioner while declaring the bid of the petitioner as successful and L1.
II. For showing cause the respondents as to how, under what circumstances and under what provisions of the tender conditions, they could relax the conditions of clause 9 to favour the respondent no. 8 and to simultaneously oust the petitioner in utter violation of Art. 14 when the auction process was already closed on 05.05.2015 at 13:03:58 hrs and the petitioner was already declared as successful and L1.
III. For quashing and setting aside the letter of LOA dated 30.05.2015 whereby and where under the tendered work in question of the above referred NIT has been sought to be awarded in favour of the respondent no. 8.
(3.)An amendment application in I.A. No. 5185 of 2015 was preferred by the petitioner which was allowed on 09.09.2015 by this Court and which is also included in the prayer made by the petitioner.
(2.)In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following directions:
I. For directing them to award the work of NIT No. BCCL/GM/CMC/E-Tender/F-HEMM-OS/2015/312 dated 09.03.2015 for which the tender process was already concluded on 05.05.2015 at 13:03:58 hrs. in favour of the petitioner while declaring the bid of the petitioner as successful and L1.
II. For showing cause the respondents as to how, under what circumstances and under what provisions of the tender conditions, they could relax the conditions of clause 9 to favour the respondent no. 8 and to simultaneously oust the petitioner in utter violation of Art. 14 when the auction process was already closed on 05.05.2015 at 13:03:58 hrs and the petitioner was already declared as successful and L1.
III. For quashing and setting aside the letter of LOA dated 30.05.2015 whereby and where under the tendered work in question of the above referred NIT has been sought to be awarded in favour of the respondent no. 8.
(3.)An amendment application in I.A. No. 5185 of 2015 was preferred by the petitioner which was allowed on 09.09.2015 by this Court and which is also included in the prayer made by the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.