Simarjit Kaur Vs. Mohinder Kaur and ors.

.....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..........for the petitioner assails the said order alleging that earlier a similar application has been filed which was dismissed on 29.4.1996 and the subsequent application in this regard was not maintainable. the learned trial court while noting the said fact held that at that time the respondents had not produced any evidence regarding execution of sale deed. now they have brought the evidence on the record regarding execution of the sale deed. in view of the changed circumstances, the application was allowed.3. the petitioner has reproduced the copy of the order dated 29.4.1996. perusal of it shows that the petitioner has set up a will alleged to have been executed by surjit kaur dated 8.7.1991. the plaintiff-respondents were contending that the will is a fabricated document. surjit kaur deceased executed a will in favour of shingara singh now represented by his legal representatives. it was pointed that the sale deed bears the thumb impressions of surjit kaur. when that application was considered by the learned trial court, it was held that at that time the petitioner has not admitted the sale deed and, therefore, the alleged thumb impressions of surjit kaur cannot be described to be her thumb impressions.4. after the evidence bad been produced, keeping in view the same an application was filed for permission to take photographs of the thumb impressions on the will purported to have been executed by surjit kaur and on the sale deed. request was made for comparison of the same. as already mentioned above, the learned trial court held that at that time, the respondents had not led any evidence which has now been produced and keeping in view the changed circumstances, the application was allowed.5. it is abundantly clear that when earlier application was dismissed, the petitioner's claim was that the application was premature because there was no evidence that surjit kaur had appended her thumb impression on the sale deed. it was in this backdrop that earlier.....