9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal arising out of civil Writ Petition, rejection of tender process, validity of Chartered Accountant's certificate, mandatory requirements for tender acceptance, High Court's judgment review, misreading of material on record. Detailed Analysis: 1. Civil Writ Petition and Tender Rejection: The appeals arose from a civil Writ Petition challenging the rejection of a tender process for providing pre-paid telephone services in a specific district. The contesting respondent sought to quash the tender process, alleging that their offer was wrongly rejected by the second respondent, leading to the contract being awarded to the appellant. The High Court, upon entertaining the writ petition, found the rejection arbitrary and unfair, cancelling the contract and directing a fresh tender process. 2. Validity of Chartered Accountant's Certificate: The appellant challenged the High Court's decision primarily on the grounds that the Chartered Accountant's certificate submitted by the respondent was not genuine, influencing the original judgment. The appellant withdrew a Special Leave Petition to approach the High Court through a review petition, highlighting the certificate's lack of authenticity. However, the High Court dismissed the review petition, emphasizing the significance of the Chartered Accountant's certificate in the original judgment. 3. Mandatory Requirements for Tender Acceptance: The appellant contended that the respondent's tender was rightfully rejected by the department due to the failure to provide mandatory information as required in the tender form. The department specified essential requirements, including turnover details, work experience, and a certified profit and loss account by a Chartered Accountant. The absence of these documents led to the rejection of the respondent's offer, a decision supported by the department's counter. 4. High Court's Judgment Review: Following unsuccessful attempts to challenge the High Court's decision through a review petition, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in concluding that certain documents were not mandatory for tender submission, contrary to the specified requirements in the tender form and annexures. The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment to be based on a misinterpretation of the tender conditions and set aside the orders made by the lower court. 5. Misreading of Material on Record: The Supreme Court determined that the High Court had misread the material on record, leading to factual errors that influenced the judgment in favor of the respondent. Due to this misinterpretation, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower court's orders and dismissing the original writ petition. The Court found that the High Court's decision was not justified based on the evidence presented and the requirements outlined in the tender documents. 6. Final Decision: Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was flawed, and the relief granted to the respondent was based on incorrect factual assessments. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the lower court's orders, dismissing the writ petition and upholding the rejection of the tender process. No separate order was deemed necessary for the appeal arising from the review order of the High Court.
|
