0

Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed and dismissed the order passed by the Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: Loadstar Equipment Ltd. Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Decision: 04.07.23

W.P.(C) 5040/2023 & CM APPL. 19721/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Introduction

Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed and dismissed the order passed by the Container Corporation of India Ltd, disqualifying the petitioner from participating in the bidding of tender bearing reference no. CON/AREA1/TECH/FORKLIFT-20/2023, which was floated by Respondent No. 1 on their website vide NIT dated 08.02.2023.

Facts of the Case

The Respondent No. 1 invited applications on the government portal for bids from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)/authorized dealers through a two packet online open tendering system, at an estimated total cost of Rs. 38,11,40,000/-, for the design, manufacture, supply, and commissioning of 20 forklifts with a capacity of 35 tonnes at a specified terminal. This is the background to the current petition.

Respondent No.1/CONCOR subsequently issued a corrigendum in respect of the part of the NIT document which lays down qualification criterion for bidders. Accordingly, Clause 2.1(b) under Section II “General Instructions to Bidders” was added to the NIT document.

Upon examination of the bid documents in the technical stage, Respondent No.1 issued communications to the bidding parties on 23.03.2023 and again on 24.03.2023, calling upon them to submit additional documents to rectify discrepancies found in the documents, latest by 29.03.2023. and The Petitioner submitted their reply to the aforesaid communication and submitted documents to the Respondent vide emails dated 28.03.2023 and 29.03.2023

On a perusal of the documents submitted by the Petitioner, the Tender Evaluation Committee of Respondent No.1 found the Petitioner to be technically not qualified and rejected the bid of the Petitioner vide impugned communication dated 18.04.2023. The Petitioner thereafter addressed an email to the CMD of Respondent No. 1, stating that no reasons had been assigned for their disqualification, and requested the intervention of CMD of Respondent No. 1 to permit the Petitioner to give further clarifications. However, there was no response to this communication.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent No.1 dated 18.04.2023, disqualifying the Petitioner from the tender process, the Petitioner has filed the instant petition on 19.04.2023, challenging the impugned communication.

Analysis and Decision of the court

In accordance with Clause 2.1, a qualified bidder must have submitted at least one purchase order for a comparable good to at least one government department, CPSC, SPSC, public limited company, etc. during the previous three years and on or before the last day of the financial year immediately preceding the one for which the bid is being submitted. Additionally, it states that a bidder and an authorised dealer cannot submit separate bids for the same product or item in the same tender.

According to Clause 2.1, the manufacturer or an authorised dealer must demonstrate that they have successfully delivered or completed one purchase order in order to be taken into consideration for the tender. According to the certificate provided by APL Apollo Steel Pipes, M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited provided the device produced by the petitioner.

The justification offered by Respondent No. 1 was that M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited was the beneficiary of the certificate issued by APL Apollo Steel Pipes. This justification is inadmissible since the proof demonstrates that M/s Excellent Engineering & Allied Service Private Limited worked with Apollo Steel Pipes to complete the machine the petitioner built.

It is undeniably well established that judicial review of administrative acts, including those involving tenders, is severely constrained. However, judicial review may be used to stop arbitrary, unreasonable, and illogical behaviour.

The fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is now well established and has been upheld numerous times by the Apex Court. Non-arbitrariness in substance and essence is the lifeblood of fair play, and State actions are subject to judicial review to the extent that the State must act lawfully for a discernible reason and not arbitrarily. The Court must intervene in order to exercise its authority under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution if the State or an instrumentality of the State fails to behave reasonably or fairly in the awarding of contracts. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Others v. Shishir Realty Private Limited and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1141 a case decided by the Supreme Court, where it was held that “Fairness and the good faith standard ingrained in the contracts entered into by public authorities mandates such public authorities to conduct themselves in a non-arbitrary manner during the performance of their contractual obligations” and “The constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness as provided under Article 14, demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. However, the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest, so claimed”

Arbitrariness is the antithesis of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, and the State must operate in a fair and reasonable manner, as has been well-established and stated by the Apex Court. As previously stated, the bidder who is a manufacturer only needed to demonstrate that it has experience supplying at least one single purchase order of government departments, CPSEs, SPSEs, Public Listed Companies, ICD, DCT, MMLP, Ports, CFS, CTOs for similar item during the previous three financial years and current financial year last day of month prior to the one in which tender is invited.

A thorough study of Clauses 2.1, 5.4, and Annexures 10 and 11 of the NIT reveals that the maker must merely demonstrate that it has provided a machine that has been installed satisfactorily. In a similar vein, Annexure-14 stipulates that the maker must also provide the certificate.

Since the Petitioner has demonstrated that it satisfies the qualifying requirements, their bid shouldn’t have been turned down.

The Respondent No. 1 was instructed to open the Petitioner’s financial bid during the hearing, and it turned out that the Petitioner was the lowest bidder.

 Given the foregoing, the writ petition and any pending applications, if any, are approved. It is mandated that the Respondents go forward in line with the law.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to view the judgement

0

Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty that the petitioners may prefer appeal

Blog ,

TITLE: Chinta Devi & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Decided on: 27-06-2023

CWJC No: 1095/2023

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

Facts of the case:

The present writ application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 18.12.2022 passed by Circle Officer, Bihiya in Mutation Case No. 2214 of 2022-23. The counsel for the petitioners submits that he has moved earlier before the Circle Officer, Bihiya bearing Mutation Case No. 638 R27/2021-2022 which was dismissed on 25.08.2021 on the ground that the petitioners were not present on the said date. 

Thereafter the petitioners have preferred Mutation Appeal No. 102 of 2021-22 which was allowed and matter was remanded back vide order dated 30.08.2022. Upon remand the Circle Officer, Bihiya has assigned a new name of this case as Mutation Case No. 2214 of 2022-23 and the said order has been passed on 18.12.2022. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present order passed by Circle Officer, Bihiya in Mutation Case No. 2214 of 2022-23 is appellable under the Mutation Act, 2011 but since petitioners are females and private respondent particularly respondent IIIrd set, on whose instance this dispute is continuing, is powerful muscleman of the locality and it is due to this reason the relief for police protection has also been demanded by the petitioners.

The Learned counsel for the State submits that the order passed by the Circle Officer, Bihiya is appellable under the Statute. He further submits that from the record of the case, the petitioners themselves admit that criminal proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. was going on for the said land. Counsel further submits that there is no such exemption given in law that for a female, there shall be exemption of Statute.

Analysis of the court and decision:

Upon going through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the firm view that when statutory appeal is permissible under law then the petitioner ought to prefer appeal. So far as life of protection is concerned, the petitioners are free to file F.I.R. against wrong doers, if there is apprehension of breach of peace they are free to take action under Cr.P.C. against wrong doers.

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed with liberty that the petitioners may prefer appeal. Delay, if any, is hereby condoned.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Meghana D

Click to view judgement

0

Delhi High Court Dismissed the petition seeking to quash government order giving the categories of Priority within the reservations provided in the Army quota of 5% for admission to various Colleges.

Blog , , , , , , , , , , ,

Title: Viney Chaudhary vs UOI & Secretary of Higher Education

Reserved: 25.05.23

Pronounced: 03.07.23

W.P.(C) 3285/2023 & CM APPL. 12796/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

    HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

Introduction

Delhi High Court Dismissed the petition seeking to quash government order giving the categories of Priority within the reservations provided in the Army quota of 5% for admission to various Colleges, and directs the government to treat Priority No. VIII above the Priority No. VI or in alternative to consider both the Priority Nos. VI and VIII at the same podium for the admissions in the forthcoming Academic Year 2023-24.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s wife is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army and is stationed in New Delhi at the moment. The petitioner’s son, Master Divyansh Chaudhary, a Class XII student at Delhi Public School in R.K. Puram, is interested in pursuing a Bachelor of Technology (hereinafter referred to as “B.Tech” Course), for which the Joint Entrance Examination (Main) (JEE) serves as the qualifying examination. The said examination was scheduled to be held from April 6 to April 12, 2023.

The respondent No. 1 created nine categories with corresponding Priorities in its Order dated May 21, 2018, and eligible candidates under each category would be entitled to admission based on their respective Priority regardless of their ranks or mark totals.

The son of the petitioner discovered that the majority of reservation benefits are only being taken away by Priority-VI, leaving no seat available for the remaining Priorities, especially Priority-VIII, in order to obtain admission to various professional courses, after reviewing the cutoff charts of various engineering colleges run by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “GNCTD”).

Thus, the petitioner has contested the Letter/Order of May 21, 2018, claiming that the distinction between Priority VI and Priority VIII violates his fundamental legal rights and deprives him of his right to equality.

Analysis and Decision of the court

In the present petition the petitioner has challenged only the list of priorities for reservation issued by the government and defence ministry for the wards of defence personnel to various medical/professional/non-professional courses. It is important to note that the petitioner has not contested the 5% reservation given to dependents of members of the armed forces, but rather feels wronged by the revised list of priorities placement of dependents of serving personnel in Priority VIII while those of ex-servicemen in Priority VI. The petitioner claims that there is no discernible distinction to put the children of serving soldiers in a group lower.

The court also highlighted that Priority VIII and Priority VI should be combined since the division of the priority between military members and ex-servicemen’s wards is not based on any discernible differences.

In the case of Union of India v. M. Selvakumar (2017) 3 SCC 504, the Apex Court ruled that horizontal reservations in the context of governmental policy are outside the purview of the courts and that they are not the appropriate forum to consider whether a given public policy is sensible and acceptable or whether a better one can be developed. However, the Courts are not prohibited from intervening in those situations when a policy choice might be criticised on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, or unfairness. The Supreme Court shared a similar opinion in its rulings in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mala Banerjee (2015) 7 SCC 698 and Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration (2001) 3 SCC 635.

The advantage of reservations for wards of ex-servicemen had not, in this instance, been denied to the children of current soldiers. The Government of India’s Ministry of Defence has made a policy directive defining how children of Army officers may use their reservations in certain categories. The classification of the wards in Priority VI and Priority VIII does not involve any arbitrary decision-making, irrational behaviour, or intentional wrongdoing.

The case of The Chief Secretary vs. D. Kuralarasan MANU/TN/6162/2021, in which the children of serving personnel were totally omitted from the admissions advertisement, illustrates instances in which a policy choice may be interfered with by the court. The Court intervened to request that they be included to the Priority list for admission to the professional course after it was noted that the exclusion of the wards of the serving personnel without any basis or justification was inappropriate in that situation.

The petitioner questions why the wards of serving personnel should be placed in the last but one category, Priority VIII, while the wards of ex-servicemen receive priority VI, when wards and wives of ex-servicemen as well as serving personnel who are receiving Gallantry Awards, can be placed together in one category, be it Priority V or Priority VII.

The respondent No. 1 in the counter affidavit has explained that although the Government of India had initially decided to grant the benefit to the wives and wards of former service members or recipients of the Gallantry Award, it was ultimately discovered that some positions remained unfilled even after the benefit had been granted to the wards of all the categories. The inclusion of the category of wards of serving people as Priority VIII is solely intended to guarantee that the advantage of reservation is completely utilised, exhausted, and not left unutilized.

The Government Order F.No.6(1)/2017/D (Res.II) dated 21.05.2018 mostly governs how the reserve quota is utilised horizontally. The aforementioned policy hasn’t been accused of being arbitrary or malicious. We don’t see any reason to challenge the Government Order from May 21, 2018, or to rearrange the Priority categories as specified therein.

Thus, the High court dismissed the petition along with pending applications.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to review the Judgement

0

AN ANALYSIS OF A JUDGMENT: ENSURING FAIRNESS IN THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR LAW CLERKS-BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Blog , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay-Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 14 June 2023. In the case of MADHAV RAJESH VED Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13667 OF 2023 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL, HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, the case brought by a law student seeking redress for the rejection of his application for the position of law clerk in the Bombay High Court. The judgment sheds light on the flaws in the selection process and highlights the importance of fairness and adherence to guidelines in such procedures. In this blog post, we will delve into the key points of the judgment and analyse its implications.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner, a recent law graduate from the Pravin Gandhi College of Law, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash three notices related to the rejection of his application for the law clerk position. The primary issue was the requirement of a recommendation from specific institutions or bar association presidents, which excluded the petitioner’s college from the list.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Legal Analysis:

  1. University Grants Commission Act: The court examined the provisions of the UGC Act and emphasized that the requirement of UGC recognition applies to universities and deemed universities, not affiliated colleges. The Act does not mandate separate recognition for every college affiliated with a recognized university.
  2. Constitutional Authority: The court questioned the provision in the guidelines that required approval from the “Hon’ble the Chief Justice” for colleges seeking inclusion, despite having UGC recognition. It deemed this requirement unnecessary, as UGC recognition itself should suffice for affiliated colleges.
  3. Right to Equality: The judgment emphasized the principle of equality and fair treatment under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. It held that the petitioner should not suffer due to an incorrect interpretation and application of the guidelines. The rejection of the petitioner’s application solely based on the lack of UGC recognition for the college was deemed unjust.

ANALYSIS

  1. The Procedure for Submitting Applications

The guidelines for submitting applications for the law clerk position stipulated that recommendations must come from specific institutions or bar association presidents. However, the petitioner’s college, although affiliated with the University of Mumbai, was not included in the list. This raised questions about the necessity of University Grants Commission (UGC) recognition for affiliated colleges.

  1. UGC Recognition and Affiliated Colleges

The judgment clarified that UGC recognition is only required for universities or deemed universities that explicitly need it. Affiliated colleges, such as the Pravin Gandhi College of Law, do not need separate recognition by the UGC. The rejection of the petitioner’s application solely based on the lack of UGC recognition for his college was deemed unlawful.

  1. Inconsistencies and Flawed Requirements

The judgment highlighted several inconsistencies in the selection process. Firstly, it questioned the requirement for UGC recognition if the college was affiliated with a recognized university. Secondly, the judgment criticized the provision that allowed recommendations from bar association presidents as an alternative to UGC recognition, as it undermined the significance of a qualifying law course.

  1. Fairness and Adherence to Guidelines

The court emphasized that executive actions should adhere to guidelines and that misinterpretation and misapplication of guidelines should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner’s case was considered on its merits, and the rejection solely based on the UGC recognition requirement was deemed unfair.

CONCLUSION

The judgment in this case highlights the importance of fairness and adherence to guidelines in the selection processes for positions in the legal system. It clarifies that affiliated colleges do not require separate UGC recognition and emphasizes the need to evaluate applicants based on their qualifications and eligibility criteria rather than arbitrary and inconsistent requirements.

This judgment serves as a reminder that transparency, consistency, and fairness should be the cornerstones of any selection process, particularly in the legal field. It also demonstrates the significance of individuals standing up for their rights and seeking legal remedies when faced with unjust treatment.

Overall, this judgment contributes to strengthening the principles of equality and fairness in the legal system, ensuring that aspiring law professionals are evaluated based on their merit rather than arbitrary requirements or procedural flaws.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

0

STRIKING THE BALANCE: UPHOLDING EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AMIDST ADMISSION CHALLENGES AND REGULATORY HURDLES – BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Blog , , ,

INTRODUCTION:

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 18 April 2023. In the case of SHRI KRISH RAJENDRA CHORDIYA Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS MINISTRY OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND ORS IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL and DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE. Education is a fundamental right that paves the way for a bright future. However, there are times when students find themselves entangled in complex situations that threaten their educational journey.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner, a diligent 17-year-old student, had successfully completed his 10th standard examination under the ICSE Board. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown, he was unable to immediately enroll in a college. During this period, he took the initiative to develop a digital app related to COVID-19 tracking, showcasing his technical and scientific abilities.

Later, when the petitioner sought admission to a junior college for the 11th and 12th standard Science stream, he applied to the 5th Respondent college, as it was closer to his residence. The petitioner and his father followed the college’s instructions, filled in the online application form, and indicated their choice as the 5th Respondent college. Subsequently, the petitioner received an allotment letter from the Deputy Director of Education, confirming his seat in the Science stream of the 5th Respondent college.

The petitioner successfully completed his 11th standard, performed exceptionally well in examinations, and even secured provisional admission to prestigious engineering and technical colleges through competitive entrance exams. However, to his utter dismay, just before the HSC examination, the 5th Respondent college informed him that his admission had been cancelled by an order from the 4th Respondent, the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Several crucial laws come into play in this case:

  1. Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965: This act establishes the framework for secondary and higher secondary education in Maharashtra, including the powers and functions of the state boards and admission regulations for junior colleges.
  2. Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra State Board: This regulation stipulates the eligibility criteria for admission to the Science stream in junior colleges. It requires candidates to secure a minimum of 40% marks in science subjects in the SSC examination or its equivalent.
  3. Right to Education Act, 2009: While not directly applicable in this case, this legislation emphasizes the importance of providing equal educational opportunities and safeguarding the rights of students.
  4. The principle of natural justice: This principle, derived from common law, ensures fair treatment and procedural fairness in administrative and judicial proceedings. It requires that individuals be given an opportunity to be heard and to present their case before any adverse decisions are made.
  5. Constitutional rights: The Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights, including the right to education (Article 21A) and the right to equality (Article 14). These rights play a significant role in shaping educational policies and ensuring that students are not arbitrarily denied admission or subjected to unfair treatment.

ANALYSIS:

Examining the facts of the case and the relevant laws, it becomes evident that the petitioner’s situation raises compelling questions. The 4th Respondent argues that the petitioner is ineligible for admission, citing the applicable regulations. However, it is crucial to consider the coordination and responsibility of both the 4th and 5th Respondents in informing the petitioner of his ineligibility before granting him admission.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s exceptional academic performance, completion of 11th and 12th standards, and success in competitive entrance exams highlight his commitment and aptitude for studying Science. The rigidity and tardiness of the 4th Respondent’s approach appear incongruent with the evolving National Education Policy, which emphasizes flexible learning options and nurturing individual potential.

The principle of natural justice demands that students be given a fair opportunity to present their case. Additionally, constitutional rights, such as the right to education and equality, serve as guiding principles in shaping educational policies and safeguarding students from arbitrary denials and unfair treatment.

JUDGMENT:

Considering the facts, laws, and principles at hand, the court could not disregard the petitioner’s plight. Recognizing the petitioner’s exemplary performance, the court found no plausible reason to exclude him completely from pursuing Science education. The court held that cancelling the petitioner’s admission on the eve of his HSC examination would be a grave injustice.

The court directed the 4th Respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s case, considering his academic achievements, provisional admission to prestigious institutions, and the paramount importance of his educational rights. The court emphasized the need for a fair and expeditious resolution to ensure that the petitioner’s prospects were not unduly jeopardized.

CONCLUSION:

The case highlights the crucial role of laws, regulations, and principles in safeguarding students’ educational rights. It underlines the need for educational institutions and regulatory bodies to balance regulations with flexibility, fairness, and consideration of individual circumstances. Upholding the petitioner’s right to education paves the way for a more inclusive and progressive educational system, where every student’s potential can be nurtured, regardless of procedural intricacies.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

Click here to view judgment

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8