PURXOMOMA RAMANATA QUENIN versus MAKAN KALYAN TANDEL & ORS.

PURXOMOMA RAMANATA QUENIN versus MAKAN KALYAN TANDEL & ORS.

Clause 7 of the tender document permitting the government to accept any tender or reject all without assigning reasons is not ultra vires Article 14, and the government is not obliged to accept the highest bid. There were no allegations of bad faith or arbitrariness warranting interference. The Judicial...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: P. R. Quenin; Respondent No. 1: Makan Kalyan Tandel; Respondent Nos. 2 4: Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu (President of India)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 January 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against the Judgment and Order of Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Judicial Commissioner set aside; writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 14—equality Before Law: Government Contracts, Tender Process—discretion to Accept/reject Highest Bid, Administrative Law—writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226
Constitutional Law Government Contracts Article 14—equality Before Law: Government Contracts Tender Process—discretion to Accept/reject Highest Bid Administrative Law—writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. R. Quenin

Appellant

Makan Kalyan Tandel

Respondent No. 1

Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu (President of India)

Respondent Nos. 2 4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against the Judgment and Order of Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 7 of the tender terms, allowing the government to select any tender or reject all tenders without assigning any reason, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the government is bound to accept the highest tender in leasing the distillery
  3. 3 Whether the lease could be set aside based solely on the government's willingness to do so in court, without more cogent reasons

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 7 of the tender document permitting the government to accept any tender or reject all without assigning reasons is not ultra vires Article 14, and the government is not obliged to accept the highest bid. There were no allegations of bad faith or arbitrariness warranting interference. The Judicial Commissioner’s order setting aside the lease merely on government’s submission was unwarranted without substantive reason.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Judicial Commissioner set aside; writ petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment of learned Judicial Commissioner set aside.
  • Petitions under Article 226 filed by respondent no. 1 dismissed.