RAVI DEVELOPMENT versus SHREE KRISHNA PRATHISTHAN & ORS.

RAVI DEVELOPMENT versus SHREE KRISHNA PRATHISTHAN & ORS.

The adoption of the Swiss Challenge Method for pilot public-private partnership housing projects by MHADA was neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, as procedures were duly followed, there was no evidence of favouritism, and the method itself was recommended by policy and applied transparently. Courts should not interfere with executive discretion in government contracts in the absence of arbitrariness or illegality.

Parties
Appellant: Ravi Development; Respondents: Shree Krishna Pratisthan & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (bombay High Court, PIL No. 72 of 2007)
Outcome
Appeals allowed. The High Court judgment is set aside.
Legal Topics
Public Private Partnership, Swiss Challenge Method, Judicial Review of Government Contracts, Article 14 Equality Before Law
Urban Development Housing Law Government Contracts Constitutional Law Public Private Partnership Swiss Challenge Method Judicial Review of Government Contracts Article 14 Equality Before Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravi Development

Appellant

Shree Krishna Pratisthan & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (bombay High Court, PIL No. 72 of 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adoption of the Swiss Challenge Method by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for awarding contract to Ravi Development was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
  2. 2 Whether submission of the proposal to the Chief Minister, holding the housing portfolio, was improper
  3. 3 Whether the process suffered from favouritism, arbitrariness, or lack of transparency

Ratio Decidendi

The adoption of the Swiss Challenge Method for pilot public-private partnership housing projects by MHADA was neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, as procedures were duly followed, there was no evidence of favouritism, and the method itself was recommended by policy and applied transparently. Courts should not interfere with executive discretion in government contracts in the absence of arbitrariness or illegality.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. The High Court judgment is set aside.

Orders

  • The common impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2008 of the High Court of Bombay in WP(L) No. 2714 of 2007 and PIL No. 72 of 2007 are set aside.
  • Appeals allowed. No costs.