HEMANT ASHAR, THE PARTNER OF SHREEJI NETWORK SOLUTIONS v. NASHIK MUNICIPAL SMART CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS
Discusses locus standi, delay, and principles applicable to tender processes, relevant across various legal domains.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:23584-DB
Decision Date: 13-06-2025
List of Laws
Writ Jurisdiction; Constitution of India, 1949; Law of Tenders; General Principles of Law
- Writ Jurisdiction: The judgment discusses the invocation of certiorari jurisdiction by the Petitioner. It refers to the requirement that the Petitioner needs to satisfy the court that he is an 'aggrieved person' to invoke this jurisdiction. The court relies on the Apex Court's decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai V/s. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and Others to determine who can be considered an 'aggrieved person' and the qualifications needed to secure such status. The court ultimately finds that the Petitioner does not fit into the expression 'aggrieved person' and therefore lacks the locus to maintain the petition.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that it empowers the High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The court notes that the founding fathers of the Constitution designedly couched the article in comprehensive phraseology to enable the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found.
- Law of Tenders: The judgment extensively discusses the tender process, eligibility criteria, and the concept of locus standi in challenging tender processes. It highlights that a non-participant in the tender process generally cannot challenge it. The court refers to the Supreme Court judgment in NHAI V/s. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd., which held that only entities participating in the tender process can make grievances about non-fulfillment or breach of tender conditions. It also cites Airport Authority of India V/s. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research, emphasizing that an organization challenging tender conditions must have the locus standi. The court finds that the Petitioner, not being a participant in the tender process, lacks the locus standi to challenge the tender. The judgment also addresses the issue of delay and laches in approaching the court to challenge the tender process.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of locus standi, particularly in the context of writ petitions challenging tender processes. It examines the concept of an "aggrieved person" and the qualifications required to maintain a petition. The court also considers the principles of delay and laches, noting that a significant delay in approaching the court can be fatal to the petition. The judgment also touches upon the principle that mere allegations of fraud cannot be a ground for ignoring the objection of delay and laches.
🔒 For Members Only