"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News