Decision Of Adjudicating Authority Can’t Be Doubted Merely Because It Is Govt Limb, Reliable Evidence Indicating Bias Is Must: Karnataka High Court

Decision Of Adjudicating Authority Can’t Be Doubted Merely Because It Is Govt Limb, Reliable Evidence Indicating Bias Is Must

Case: Philips India Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others

Coram: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J M Khazi

Case No.: W.A. NO. 557 OF 2022

Court Observation: “There has to be reliable evidence to indicate that the authority adjudicating the objection is biased and the decision cannot be questioned merely because officer is a limb of the Government.”

“The appellate authority has complied with the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court and has ensured supply of one MRI machine out of total of 3 tesla MRI, 1.5 tesla MRI and 128 CT Scanners each which had been tendered. The appellate authority has in the aforesaid process of ensuring compliance with the orders of this court, has not adjudicated the issue raised by the appellant either with regard to irregularities in the tender or with regard to ineligibility of respondent No.4 on the ground that it is a company based in China. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal before the Appellate Authority has been preferred after the filing of the affidavit dated 04.03.2022.”

“There is no material on record to infer any official bias on the part of the appellate authority and the same cannot be inferred merely because the appellate authority has complied with the directions contained in the order passed by the division bench of this court in a Public Interest Litigation.”

Previous Posts

If Sanction For Prosecuting Public Servant Under PC Act Is Denied, Prosecuting Agency Can’t File Challan Under Other Penal Laws On Same Facts: J&K&L HC

Principle Of Promissory Estoppel Applies After Customer Acts On Basis Of Bank’s One Time Settlement Scheme: Gujarat High Court

Delhi High Court Restrains Husband From Pursuing Matrimonial Case In Canada During Pendency Of Divorce Petition Filed By Wife In India

No Legal Mandate That Two Years Must Be Added To Outer Age Limit Determined By Ossification Test: Orissa High Court

Bar Against ‘Inter-District Transfer’ Not Applicable To Govt Teachers With Disabilities: Orissa High Court

Cancellation Of GST Registration Affects Right To Livelihood, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Uttarakhand High Court

Establishments In Notified Industrial Areas Exempted From Obtaining Building Permit From Local Bodies: Kerala High Court

Another Life Lost, Yet Another Prosecution Fails: Kerala High Court Acquits 13 RSS Workers In Vishnu Political Murder Case

Applicability Of Section 27A Is Seriously Questionable: Supreme Court Upholds Bail Granted To NDPS Accused

Order XXII Rule 4 CPC – Appeal As A Whole Does Not Abate Merely Because LRs Of Some Deceased Respondents Were Not Brought On Record: Supreme Court

Not Prudent To Convict An Accused Solely On Basis Of Identification For The First Time In Court Without Test Identification Parade: Supreme Court

Twin Conditions In Section 10B (8) Income Tax Act Has To Be Fulfilled To Claim Exemption Relief: Supreme Court

Accused Entitled To Bail If Arrest Was In Breach Of Sections 41, 41A CrPC: Supreme Court

Motor Accident Compensation – Self-Employed Deceased Aged Below 40 Years Entitled To 40% Addition As Future Prospects: Supreme Court Download Judgement