STATE OF U.P. versus SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.

STATE OF U.P. versus SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.

The High Court’s judgment quashing the tender cancellation was upheld on the ground that the Corporation’s cancellation and related inquiry were conducted ex parte in breach of the audi alteram partem rule and that prejudice to the bidder (Respondent No.1) was established; however the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s quashing insofar as it nullified the Managing Director’s report dated 14.06.2019 and the Special Secretary’s order dated 16.07.2019, holding that those aspects were not challenged and any consequential action must proceed in accordance with law; earnest money and security deposit were ordered returned within eight weeks and unpaid sums may be claimed after a hearing...

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P.; Respondent: Sudhir Kumar Singh; Respondent: U.P. State Warehousing Corporation
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decided on Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 11.12.2019
Outcome
Appeals disposed: High Court judgment dated 11.12.2019 upheld insofar as it quashed the tender cancellation for breach of natural justice; High Court judgment set aside insofar as it quashed the Managing Director’s report dated 14.06.2019 and Special Secretary’s order dated 16.07.2019
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Audi Alteram Partem, Maintainability of Writ Petitions, Prejudice Test, Judicial Review of Tender Cancellation
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Contract Law Tenders Natural Justice Audi Alteram Partem Maintainability of Writ Petitions Prejudice Test +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P.

Appellant

Sudhir Kumar Singh

Respondent

U.P. State Warehousing Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decided on Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 11.12.2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cancellation of tender award without hearing violated audi alteram partem
  2. 2 Whether a writ under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge State action in contractual/tender matters
  3. 3 Whether the High Court exceeded the relief sought by quashing reports/orders not challenged

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court’s judgment quashing the tender cancellation was upheld on the ground that the Corporation’s cancellation and related inquiry were conducted ex parte in breach of the audi alteram partem rule and that prejudice to the bidder (Respondent No.1) was established; however the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s quashing insofar as it nullified the Managing Director’s report dated 14.06.2019 and the Special Secretary’s order dated 16.07.2019, holding that those aspects were not challenged and any consequential action must proceed in accordance with law; earnest money and security deposit were ordered returned within eight weeks and unpaid sums may be claimed after a hearing...

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed: High Court judgment dated 11.12.2019 upheld insofar as it quashed the tender cancellation for breach of natural justice; High Court judgment set aside insofar as it quashed the Managing Director’s report dated 14.06.2019 and Special Secretary’s order dated 16.07.2019

Orders

  • The High Court judgment of 11.12.2019 is upheld on the ground that natural justice was breached and prejudice was caused to Respondent No.1, but is set aside insofar as it quashed the Managing Director’s report dated 14.06.2019 and the Special Secretary’s order dated 16.07.2019
  • The Managing Director’s report dated 14.06.2019 and the Special Secretary’s order dated 16.07.2019 are not quashed by this Court and any consequential action pursuant thereto shall follow in accordance with law