Balineni Anjaneyulu & Anr. v. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Ongole, Prakasam district
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Sep 2005
- Bench
- K C BHANU
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 14
Judgment
25.05.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O. Ms. No.94 Irrigation & CAD (PW) Department, dated 01.07.2003 and G.O.Ms. No.142 Irrigation & CAS (PW-Reforms) Department, dated
20.12.2004 and consequently direct the respondent to issue tender schedules the petitioners without insisting for experience mentioned in column nos. 7 and 8 of the tender notice, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & C.A.D. The law is well settled that the tender conditions can not normally be subjected to judicial scrutiny unless they are arbitrary or irrational or ex facie in contravention of any statutory provisions or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Government Pleader contended that the said condition was incorporated in view of the guidelines of the World Bank, with whose funds the works have been taken up, and so, the said condition equally applies to all the tenderers and there can not be any discrimination. There is absolutely no allegation that the said specification to produce the experience certificate was deliberately incorporated so as to eliminate some of the tenderers. Therefore, in the absence of any infringement of legal right of the petitioners or any arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, the relief in the Writ Petition can not be granted. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ---------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.)
14.09.2005 DRK
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 14.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 14 Sep 2005. The bench was K C BHANU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.