Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Burden of Proof in Appeal under RTPP Act - The appellant bears the initial burden to prove illegality or irregularity in procurement or tender processes. Once the appellant establishes a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the respondent to justify the action taken by the authorities. The burden to prove illegality or violation of rules is thus primarily on the appellant, especially in appeals challenging procurement decisions or debarment orders. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1468, 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1414, 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423, 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161, 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 693
Availability of Appeal under Section 38 of RTPP Act - The law provides an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 38 for disputes related to procurement, debarment, or cancellation orders. Courts have consistently held that if an appeal is available under Section 38, the aggrieved party must exhaust this remedy before approaching courts, unless the order is of such nature that it bypasses the statutory remedy explicitly or implicitly. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1414, 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423, 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161, 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 693,
M/S. MOHAN TRADERS vs RAJ. RAJYA SAHKARI UPBHOKTA SANGH LTD. - Rajasthan
Exceptions and Limitations - Certain provisions, such as Section 40 of the RTPP Act, restrict or exclude the availability of appeal in specific cases, e.g., cancellation of procurement under Section 26. In such cases, the burden shifts to the appellant to demonstrate illegality, as the statutory remedy may be barred or limited. Courts have emphasized that bypassing statutory remedies requires compelling reasons and that the appellant must prove the illegality to succeed in such cases. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1468
Judicial Approach - Courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that the burden of proof lies on the appellant to establish illegality, especially when challenging procurement or debarment orders. They also stress that the remedy of appeal under Section 38 is generally available and should be availed before approaching courts, unless the order falls under exceptions where statutory remedies are barred or not provided. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1414, 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423, 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161
Conclusion - In appeals under the RTPP Act, the burden to prove illegality or irregularity rests on the appellant. The availability of an appeal under Section 38 provides an effective remedy, and courts consistently endorse the exhaustion of this remedy before judicial intervention. Only in cases where statutory provisions explicitly bar or restrict the appeal can the burden shift, and the appellant must then substantiate the illegality to succeed. All sources
In the competitive world of public procurement in Rajasthan, bidders often face challenges like , , or tender cancellations. When aggrieved parties seek redress through appeals under the , a key question arises: Appeal under RTPP Act Burden to Prove Illegality is on Appellant? The answer is generally yes—the appellant typically shoulders the initial burden to demonstrate that the authority's order is illegal, arbitrary, or procedurally flawed. This principle ensures efficient resolution while upholding transparency. This post breaks down the legal framework, judicial insights, and practical strategies, drawing from key cases and provisions. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under the RTPP Act, appeals primarily target orders related to procurement processes, including under . The primary legal principle... indicates that the burden of proving illegality or illegality of the order lies on the appellant when challenging an order passed under the .2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161
The appellant must establish that the order is illegal, arbitrary, or violative of principles to succeed. Courts emphasize that mere dissatisfaction isn't enough; concrete evidence is required. As propounded in general appellate principles, In appeal the burden is on appellant to prove how the judgment under appeal is wrong.2020 0 Supreme(All) 543
This holds true in RTPP contexts, where the appellant bears the initial onus to prove irregularity in procurement or tender processes. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1468 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1414 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423
Section 38 provides a of appeal against orders under , such as or . provides the of appeal against orders passed under , which involves or of bidders.2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161
Courts consistently direct parties to exhaust this remedy before , unless bypassed. For instance, Drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 38 of Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012... the appeal as provided under Section 38...
Availability of Appeal under Section 38 of RTPP Act - The law provides an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 38 for disputes related to procurement, , or cancellation orders.2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1414 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161
Bypassing it without strong justification, like proven illegality, is discouraged. In one case, the impugned order dated bypassed alternate remedies under RTPP Act.
A cornerstone for challenging RTPP orders is procedural compliance. The appellant bears the burden to demonstrate that the order passed by the authority is illegal or without compliance with procedural requirements, such as providing an opportunity of hearing.2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423
If an order lacks a hearing opportunity, it's . The documents highlight that if an order is passed without extending an opportunity of hearing, it is and can be challenged successfully by the aggrieved party.2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161 Courts may set aside such orders if the appellant proves or violation of , even with an appeal available. 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423
Challenges often involve factual disputes, which writ courts hesitate to resolve. The respondent's counsel contends that the matter involves , which are generally not suitable for resolution in writ proceedings and are better addressed through the statutory appeal process.2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161
However, can be directly challenged in writs if proven. The appellant can challenge and illegality directly in the writ petition if they can prove that the order was passed without following due process.2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161 This balances statutory remedies with fundamental rights.
Not all cases allow straightforward appeals. Certain provisions, such as , restrict or exclude the availability of appeal in specific cases, e.g., cancellation of procurement under Section 26.2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1468
Here, the burden intensifies on the appellant to show compelling illegality. Courts grant liberty to pursue remedies but stress exhaustion. The petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedy provided under the RTPP... informed this Court that the grievance of the petitioner of not deciding the first appeal.
Exceptions and Limitations - ...the burden shifts to the appellant to demonstrate illegality, as the may be barred or limited.2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1468
rulings reinforce the appellant's burden. Courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that the lies on the appellant to establish illegality, especially when challenging procurement or orders.2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1414 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161
Echoing wisdom: Appellant must show where assessment has gone wrong, as has been propounded in .2020 0 Supreme(All) 543 2019 0 Supreme(All) 2223 2019 0 Supreme(All) 614
In NDPS contexts (analogous stringency), no illegality was found without proof. 2024 0 Supreme(J&K) 325 Similarly, in civil appeals, plaintiffs failed without meeting their burden. 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 729
in Appeal under RTPP Act - The appellant bears the initial burden to prove illegality or irregularity... Once the appellant establishes a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the respondent...2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1468 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1414 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 693
To succeed:1. Gather evidence early: Notices, hearing records, or procedural lapses.2. File under Section 38 promptly: Time-bound appeals.3. Prove prima facie illegality: Shift onus to respondents.4. Seek writs judiciously: Only for glaring violations.5. Document everything: Supports burden in courts.
The burden of proving illegality in an appeal under the RTPP Act rests on the appellant. The appellant must substantiate claims of ...2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 423
In RTPP Act appeals, the scales tip toward the appellant proving illegality—procedural flaws, , or breaches. While Section 38 offers a robust remedy, success demands evidence. In conclusion, the legal documents affirm that in appeals under the RTPP Act, the burden to prove illegality or is on the appellant.2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161
Key Takeaways:- Burden primarily on appellant to prove order's illegality. 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1161- Exhaust Section 38 appeals before writs. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1414- violations are strong grounds if evidenced.- Judicial precedents like Narbada Prasad guide the approach. 2020 0 Supreme(All) 543- Exceptions under Section 40 heighten the proof threshold. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1468
For Rajasthan bidders, understanding this framework is crucial for procurement success. Stay informed, act swiftly, and seek professional guidance.
#RTPPLaw, #ProcurementAppeal, #BurdenOfProof
Thus, Section 40 of the RTPP Act provides for the cases in which the remedy of appeal under Section 38 of the RTPP Act is not available. ... of the RTPP Act. ... Section 35 of the RTPP Act. ... under Section 38 of the RTPP Act. ... Thus, the provisions of Section 40 (d) of the RTPP#HL_END....
Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (‘RTPP Rules’) and in the present case alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available under Section 38 of RTPP Act. ... , 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTPP Act’), which pertains to debarment from bidding. ... He also submits that the filing of false affidavits by the petitioner is clearly a violation of Code of Integrity under Rule 82 of the #HL....
Drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 38 of Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short "RTPP Act"), learned Senior counsel submitted that the appeal as provided under Section 38 of the RTPP Act is available in respect of the dispute relating to initial ... In view of the conclusion arrived at as aforesaid, we need not enter into the questi....
impugned order dated 11.11.2021, provisions of RTPP Act, 2012 bypassed the alternate and statutory remedy available to it under appellant.
Drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 38 of Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short "RTPP Act"), learned Senior counsel submitted that the appeal as provided under Section 38 of the RTPP Act is available in respect of the dispute relating to initial ... On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the o....
Drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 38 of Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short “RTPP Act”), learned Senior counsel submitted that the appeal as provided under Section 38 of the ... In view of the conclusion arrived at as aforesaid, we need not enter into the question raised on behalf of the appellant as to whether against the order im....
There accordingly, does not appear to be any illegality with the impugned judgment. The instant appeal, as such, is dismissed as meritless. ... After an extensive discussion, this Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions 10 of Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act 43, but went on to hold that since the provisions of the NDPS Act and the punishments prescribed therein are stringent, the extent of b....
preferred by the respondent no.1 under the provisions of Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for brevity-'the Act of 2012'), the work order given to the petitioner has been cancelled and re-tender procedure is directed to be started. ... It is averred that the Procurement Entity committed illegality in permitting only the petitioner to cure the defect in its technical bid which was material in nature. ... The first #HL_S....
the plaintiff has also failed to prove other issues as the burden is lying on the plaintiff and accordingly, the Court has dismissed the suit which was challenged by way of appeal which is the Regular Civil Appeal No.87 of 2007 before the lower Appellate Court, whereby, the lower Appellate Court has ... I found no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the findings of both the Courts below who have concur....
by the Appellate Authority filed under RTPP Act, 2012, now stands redressed as the Appellate Authority Act, 2012. ... provided under the Act. ... The petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedy provided under the RTPP and informed this Court that the grievance of the petitioner of not deciding the first appeal
No doubt, an appeal before this Court under is an appeal as of right and is open both on facts and law; still the practice of the Courts has uniformly been to give the greatest assurance to the assessment of evidence made by the Judge who hears the witnesses an watches their demeanour and judges of their credibility in the first instance. He must show wherein the assessment has gone wrong. In an appeal the burden is on the appellant to prove how the judgment under appeal is wrong.#HL....
In appeal, the burden is on appellant to prove how judgment under appeal is wrong? Appellant must show where assessment has gone wrong, as has been propounded in Narbada Prasad Vs. Chhaganlal, AIR 1969 SC 393.
In Appeal, burden is always on the appellant to prove how the judgment, under Appeal, is wrong. He must show where the assessment has gone wrong, as has been propounded by the Apex court in the case of Narbada Prasad vs. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, prosecution has to prove charge beyond all reasonable doubt and accused has to prove only establishing or existence of preponderance of probabilities for a case, other than proved by the prosecution.
Appellant must show where assessment has gone wrong as has been propounded in Narbada Prasad vs. In appeal the burden is on appellant to prove how judgment under appeal is wrong?
In appeal the burden is on appellant to prove how the judgment under appeal is wrong? Prosecution is to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas accused is to prove only till establishing preponderance of probabilities, as propounded in Pratap Vs. State of U.P., (1976) AIR SC 966, but apex court repeatedly particularly in State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh, (1975) AIR SC 258 has propounded that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
