9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged fraud and conspiracy by DOT officials. 2. Legitimate expectation and change in government policy. 3. Withdrawal of ADB loan and its implications on the tender process. 4. Procedural and substantive aspects of legitimate expectation. Summary: Issue 1: Alleged fraud and conspiracy by DOT officials The appellant alleged that DOT officials conspired and played fraud to disqualify their bid and favor multinational companies with outmoded analog technology. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and subsequent events rendered the issue moot. The Supreme Court noted that the ADB loan was withdrawn, making the original tender process irrelevant. The Court decided not to delve into the question of fraud, stating, "Further, there cannot be a cause of action on the basis of an 'attempt at fraud' which did not materialize." Issue 2: Legitimate expectation and change in government policy The appellant argued that they had a legitimate expectation that the original tender for Eastern UP would proceed even after the ADB loan withdrawal. The Court examined the principle of legitimate expectation, citing various precedents, and concluded that the government's decision to extend the rural telecom project to other backward areas was not irrational or perverse under Wednesbury principles. The Court stated, "Such a change in policy cannot, in our opinion, be said to be irrational or perverse according to Wednesbury principles." Issue 3: Withdrawal of ADB loan and its implications on the tender process The ADB loan, which was the basis for the tender, was withdrawn, making the original tender process for Eastern UP infeasible. The Court noted that the ADB had formally canceled the loan offer, and the government decided to fund the project through its own resources, extending it to other rural areas. The Court observed, "It will well-nigh be impossible to issue any directions to the Union of India to seek a renewal of the lapsed loan nor to issue any directions to continue the project for Eastern UP on the basis of ADB loan." Issue 4: Procedural and substantive aspects of legitimate expectation The Court explored the doctrine of legitimate expectation, emphasizing that it requires regularity, predictability, and certainty in government dealings. The Court acknowledged that legitimate expectation could be procedural or substantive but held that the change in policy to benefit a broader range of rural areas was justified. The Court concluded, "The legitimate substantive expectation merely permits the Court to find out if the change in policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate expectation is irrational or perverse." Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the transfer petition, stating that the issues raised had become moot due to the withdrawal of the ADB loan and subsequent policy changes. The Court found no violation of legitimate expectation or evidence of fraud that warranted judicial intervention. The appeal and Transfer Petition were dismissed without costs.
|
