Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Gross Irregularities and Illegalities in Tender Process Cannot be Overlooked: Supreme Court Quashes High Court's Order in HIMUDA Tender Saga

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has annulled the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision pertaining to the HIMUDA tender process. The judgment underscores the imperative of judicial diligence and transparency in public procurement processes, particularly when allegations of irregularities and illegalities are substantiated.

The core issue revolved around the tender floated by HIMUDA for a commercial complex in Shimla. Initially, the tender was canceled due to procedural lapses and irregularities, a decision supported by an independent committee's findings. However, in a subsequent turn of events, the High Court permitted HIMUDA to reinstate the original tender. This decision, primarily based on the unverified statements of the respondents' counsel, was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Tender Irregularities: The Supreme Court, taking a firm stance, denounced the irregularities in the tender process, highlighting the necessity for adherence to procedural and legal norms in public contracts.

Judicial Oversight by High Court: The Apex Court criticized the High Court for its inadequate scrutiny of the independent committee's report and for relying excessively on the respondent counsels' statements, thereby failing to uphold the tenets of judicial diligence and transparency.

Conduct of Respondents: The judgment pointed out potential collusion between HIMUDA and the contractor (Respondent 2), which amounted to a serious misuse of the legal process and an affront to public interest.

Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and instructed HIMUDA to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 as costs for the misuse of judicial process. The Court mandated a fresh, lawful, and transparent tender process, emphasizing strict compliance with due process in future tenders.

Date of Decision: April 2nd, 2024.

Level 9 BIZ Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority & Another

Latest Legal News