.....statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained]
articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to.....j.v. gupta, j.1. this is an application for transfer of a petition under section 9 of the hindu marriage act filed by surinder kumar respondent-husband against his wife neelam rani petitioner in the court of additional district judge, sirsa. marriage took place on 14-10-1987 at kurukshetra. the wife filed a petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act for a decree of divorce against her husband on 16-11-1988 and the same is pending in the court of additional district judge, kurukshetra. thereafter the husband filed a petition under section 9 of the act in the court of additional district judge, sirsa. in the circumstances, it has been prayed that the petition under section 9 filed by the husband at sirsa be transferred to the court of addl. district judge, kurukshetra so that both the petitions be tried together. no one is present on behalf of the respondent in spite of service. in view of the averments made in the petition, it is a fit case where the petition filed by the husband under section 9 of the act pending in the court .of addl. district judge, sirsa should be transferred to the court of addl. district judge, kurukshetra where a petition under section 13 of the act between the parties is pending. consequently, this application succeeds and it is directed that the petition under section 9 of the hindu marriage act titled as 'surinder kumar v. neelam rani' pending the court of shri s.d. arora, additional district judge, sirsa be transferred to the court of additional district judge, kurukshetra, where a petition under section 13 of the act between the parties titled as neelam rani v. surinder kumar is pending.