Raj Kumar Vs. Aval 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.....nirmal singh, j.1. the petitioner met with a road accident and was seriously injured and got multiple fractures. the petitioner filed claim petition before the motor accident claims tribunal (hereinafter called the tribunal) under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1938 for grant of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him. during the pendency of the claim petition, a compromise was effected between the parties. the respondents agreed to pay rs. 85,000/- in favour of the claimant. this amount is to be paid by the insurance company-respondent no. 3 in full and final settlement of the claim. the learned tribunal directed respondent no. 3 to make the payment within 60 days from the date of passing of the award and further ordered that the amount shall be deposited in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit for a period of five years. the only grouse of the petitioner is that the learned tribunal had erroneously ordered to deposit the amount of compensation in fixed deposit for 5 years whereas the money was required for his treatment from p.g.i. chandigarh as an outdoor patient vide c.r. no. 703270. in this way the petitioner has incurred huge amount on his treatment and on special diet. 2. i have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and find force in it. 3. the petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents as it is not required. taking into consideration the averments made in this petition and the circumstances of the case, i am of the considered opinion that the order of the learned tribunal declining to release the amount of compensation lying in fixed deposit for 5 years is palpably erroneous. they petitioner is neither minor nor insane that the money paid to the petitioner will be misappropriated. the petitioner is in dire need of money as he is to get himself treated and he also required special diet etc. so, applying the ratio of the case titled h.s. ahammed hussain v......