KASTORI LAL LAKSHMI REDDY versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANOTHER

KASTORI LAL LAKSHMI REDDY versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANOTHER

The allocation of tapping contracts to the 2nd respondent was made bona fide, reasonably, and in public interest; the procedure and selection criteria adopted by the State were rational, and no evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness was found. Therefore, the State action did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Parties
Petitioner: Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy; Respondent: State of Jammu and Kashmir; Respondent: Another (2nd respondent)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 1980
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonableness in State Contracts, Public Interest, Article 14, Article 19, Award of Government Largess, Monopoly and Industrial Policy
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Government Contracts Reasonableness in State Contracts Public Interest Article 14 Article 19 Award of Government Largess +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy

Petitioner

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Respondent

Another (2nd respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the allotment of tapping contracts of resin in favour of the 2nd respondent was arbitrary, mala fide, or not in public interest
  2. 2 Whether such action constitutes unreasonable restriction on the petitioners’ right under Article 19(1)(g)
  3. 3 Whether State action violated Article 14 by not giving an opportunity to others to compete for the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The allocation of tapping contracts to the 2nd respondent was made bona fide, reasonably, and in public interest; the procedure and selection criteria adopted by the State were rational, and no evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness was found. Therefore, the State action did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Both writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs.