Tender Document (Non Transferable: Fill & Download for Free

Go to the website of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, in section for GST rates and rules, click on ready reckoner and finder. Go to services ...“RATE CONTRACT FOR DRILLING OF BOREHOLES OF 75 mm DIA UPTO ... The tender documents for these works are available only in ... Latest Income Tax return, PAN, GST number ...12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06. 2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25-01-2018 & thereby attracts “NIL” rate of GST.The borewell drilling pattern varies in various states. It is not possible to estimate duration of work, quantum of work or tax liability ...The scope of work included in this tender shall include (but not be limited ... Drilling / Sinking of gravel packed bore hole of 530 mm dia by direct ... VAT/GST/ Labour Cess or any other tax levied on the transfer of.surveying, drill site preparation and all work necessarily connected therewith that is conducted in ... boreholes; ii. ... Prior to introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST), effective customs duty on import of.We provide live water well drilling tenders, fresh and latest water well drilling ... with gst labor cess for solid waste management under swachh bharat mission.with CPWD or PWD for Percentage Rate Tender & contract for works for repair of ... Amount in. Rs. 1. NS Horizontal Directional Drilling. 25. Mtr. 2. GST. 3 ... product pipe through the pilot borehole.We also drill 100 mm dia to 450 mm dia (4 inch to 14 inchs) Boreholes in all kinds of soil strata formation for various applications in Civil and Construction.fifty only) non-refundable, inclusive of GST, in cash or in form of Demand Draft ... d) The core drilling of bore hole work will be executed under ...

Following are the three cases:S. P. Gupta v. Union of India - 1982 (also known as the Judges' Transfer case)Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association vs Union of India - 1993In Special Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) Of the Constitution of India on Principles and Procedure regarding appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges Vs Unknown on 28 October 1998 in the Supreme Court___________________________________S.P. Gupta case (December 30, 1981) or THE FIRST JUDGES CASE: It declared that the “primacy” of the CJI’s recommendation on judicial appointments and transfers can be refused for “cogent reasons.” The ruling gave the Executive primacy over the Judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years.Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association versus Union of India or THE SECOND JUDGES CASE (October 6, 1993): The majority verdict gave back CJI’s power over judicial appointments and transfers. It says the CJI only need to consult two senior-most judges. “The role of the CJI is primal in nature because this being a topic within the judicial family, the Executive cannot have an equal say in the matter,” the verdict reasoned. However, confusion prevails as the CJIs start taking unilateral decisions without consulting two colleagues. The President is reduced to only an approver.In Special Reference case of 1998 or THE THREE JUDGES CASE (October 28, 1998): On a reference from former President K.R. Narayanan, the Supreme Court lays down that the CJIs should consult with a plurality of four senior-most Supreme Court judges to form his opinion on judicial appointments and transfers.___________________________________S. P. GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA ON 30 DECEMBER 1981 IN THE SUPREME COURT - 1982 -- THE JUDGES' TRANSFER CASEThe correspondence exchanged between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India on the appointment and transfer of judges was not privileged and was therefore not protected from disclosure under the law. A particular document regarding the affairs of the state is only immune from disclosure when disclosure is clearly contrary to public interest.FACTSThe foregoing case dealt with a number of petitions involving important constitutional questions regarding the appointment and transfer of judges and the independence of judiciary. One of the issues raised was regarding the validity of Central Government orders on the non-appointment of two judges. To establish this claim, the petitioners sought the disclosure of correspondence between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India.However, the state claimed privilege against disclosure of these documents under article 74(2) of the Indian Constitution, which provides that the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President cannot be inquired into in any court, and section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that evidence derived from unpublished official records on state affairs cannot be given without the permission of the head of the concerned department. Section 162 of the Evidence Act provides that a witness summoned to produce a document before a court must do so, and the court will decide upon any objection to this.DECISION OVERVIEWIn a case decided by Justice Bhagwati, the Supreme Court of India rejected the government’s claim for protection against disclosure and directed the Union of India to disclose the documents containing the correspondence. An open and effective participatory democracy requires accountability and access to information by the public about the functioning of the government. Exposure to the public gaze in an open government will ensure a clean and healthy administration and is a powerful check against oppression, corruption, and misuse or abuse of authority. The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know, which is implicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the disclosure of information in regard to government functioning must be the rule and secrecy the exception, justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest demands it.With respect to the contention involving Article 74(2), the Court held that while the advice by the Council of Ministers to the President would be protected against judicial scrutiny, the correspondence in this case between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India was not protected merely because it was referred to in the advice.There are only two grounds on the basis of which the Central Government’s decision regarding appointment and transfer can be challenged:(1) there was no full and effective consultation between the Central Government and the appropriate authorities, and(2) the decision was based on irrelevant grounds. The correspondence in question would be relevant qua both these grounds, which necessitates its disclosure.Public interest lies at the foundation of the claim for protection under the Evidence Act. Under these considerations, the Court must decide whether disclosure of a particular document will be contrary to public interest. It must balance the public interest in fair administration of justice through disclosure with the public interest sought to be protected by nondisclosure, and then decide if the document should be protected.The correspondence in the present case was found not to be protected. It dealt with appointment and transfer of judges, a matter of great public interest, and its disclosure would not have been detrimental to public interest. The apprehension of an ill-informed or captious public or of political criticism were not enough to justify the protection of the correspondence. After examining the correspondence, the Court decided that the Central Government order regarding non-appointment was justified.The Supreme Court of India recognized the public’s right to information as being included in rights to freedom of speech and expression. It also further narrowed the scope of protection from disclosure afforded government documents.________________________SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA ON 6 OCTOBER, 1993 IN THE SUPREME COURT - - 1993Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association v. Union of India, 19931. Supreme Court of India Supreme Court Advocates on Record Assn. v. Union of India2. BACKGROUNDThe cased is based on independence of Judiciary as the part of basic structure of Constitution.This case is famously known as “second judges case”.To secure the 'rule of law' essential for the preservation of the democratic system, the broad scheme of separation of powers adopted in the Constitution, together with the directive principle of 'separation of judiciary from executive' The case was decided on 6 October, 1993.After the 1993 judgment on second judges case the collegium system was adopted in appointment of judges of Supreme Court and High Courts.Nine Judges to examine the two question referred therein, namely, the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justiciability of fixation of Judge strength.RATIO DECIDENDIA nine judge bench of the Supreme Court by 7-2 majority overruled its earlier judgment IN THE S P GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA and held that in the matter of appointment of the judges of Supreme Court and the High Courts the Chief Justice of India should have primacy means most important.LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONSArticle 124. Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court. –(1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven (now "twenty-five" vide Act 22 of 1986) other Judges.(2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years:Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consuited;Provided further that -(a) a judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;(b) a large may be removed from his office in the manner provided in Clause (4).Article 216. Constitution of High Courts. - Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint.Article 217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.-(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in Article 224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of sixty-two year:Provided that –(a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office ;(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in Clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court;(c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President tot be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory of India.(2)...(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court, the question shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the President shall be final.Article 222. Transfer of a Judge from on High Court to another.-(1) The President may, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, transfer a Judge from one High Court to any other High Court.(2) When a Judge has been or is so transferred, he shall during the period he serves, after the commencement of the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, as a Judge of the other High Court, be entitled to receive in addition to his salary such compensatory allowance as may be determined by Parliament by law and, until so determined, such compensatory allowance as the President may by order fix.ISSUES(1) Primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India in regard to the appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court and the High Court, and in regard to the transfers of High Court Judges/Chief Justices; and(2) Justiciability of these matters, including the matter of fixation of the Judge-strength in the High Courts.ARGUMENT ADVANCEDo Sarvashri F.S. Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Ram Jethmalani, P.P. Rao and Shanti Bhushan argued for reconsideration of the majority opinion in S.P. Gupta, contending that the role of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts and transfers of the High Court Judges and Chief Justices has primacy, with the executive having the role of merely making the appointments and transfers in accordance with the opinion of the Chief Justice of India.o One point of view canvassed was that the primacy of the Chief Justice of India is in all matters; another point of view was that in an exceptional case the executive may not make an appointment recommended by the Chief Justice of India if, for strong reasons disclosed to the Chief Justice of India, that appointment was considered to be unsuitable.o It was also contended by them that the matter of fixation of the Judge- strength under Article 216 is justiciable, there being some difference between them about the extent to which it is justiciable.JUDGMENTo Thus on the question of primacy the court conclude to say that the role of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointments to the Judges of the Supreme Court is unique, singular and primal, but participatory vis-a-vis the Executive on a level of togetherness and mutuality, and neither he nor the Executive can push through an appointment in derogation of the wishes of the other.o The roles of the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of the High Court in the matter of appointments of Judges of the High Court, is relative to this extent that should the Chief Justice of India be in disagreement with the proposal, the Executive cannot prefer the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court in making the appointment over and above those of the Chief Justice of India. In the matters of transfers of Judges from one High Court to another, the role of the Chief Justice of India is primal in nature and the Executive has a minimal.CONCLUSIONo Late Justice Verma, former CJI of SC and author of majority judgment in Second Judges case himself said in one interview that “My 1993 judgment, which holds the field, was very much misunderstood and misused. It was in that context I said the working of the judgment now for some time is raising serious questions, which cannot be called unreasonable.o Therefore, some kind of rethink is required. My judgment says the appointment process of High Court and Supreme Court Judges is basically a joint or participatory exercise between the executive and the judiciary, both taking part in it.” The person who evolved the collegium system is himself not looking happy with the collegium system of appointment.o He himself was asking for change in procedure which is done by Parliament through the Present Amendment. India is among a few countries where judges appoint themselves.________________________IN PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 143(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ON PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURE REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES Vs UNKNOWN ON 28 OCTOBER 1998 IN THE SUPREME COURT17(1998) 7 SCC 739: 1998 (5) SCALE 36: RLW 1999 (1) SC 168, Reference made on 23/7/1998,Decided on 28/10/1998.In Re Principles and Procedure regarding appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges 1998 17 (AIR 1999 SC 1). In Advocates-on- Record Association vs. Union of India (1994 (4) SCC 441 = AIR 1994 SC 268),The Supreme Court had laid down the procedural norms for appointment of Judges of Supreme Court and High Court.The decision was rendered by 9 Judges bench and five judgments were delivered.As doubts arose about the interpretation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, the President made a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution seeking clarification on certain points.Nine questions were referred to the Court for advisory opinion and these questions pertained to following three main points:-(i) Consultation between the Chief Justice of India and other Judges in the matter of appointment of the Supreme Court and the High Court Judges;(ii) Transfer of High Court Judges and judicial review thereof; and(iii) The relevance of seniority in making appointments to the Supreme Court.THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE REFERRED FOR THE OPINION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT:-“(1) Whether the expression "consultation with the Chief Justice of India" in articles 217(1) and 222(1) requires consultation with a plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India or does the sole individual opinion of the Chief Justice of India constitute consultation within the meaning of the said articles;(2) Whether the transfer of judges is judicially reviewable in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that "such transfer is not justiciable on any ground" and its further observation mat limited judicial review is available in matters of transfer, and the extent and scope of judicial review;(3) Whether article 124(2) as interpreted in the said judgment requires the Chief Justice of India to consult only the two seniormost Judges or whether there should be wider consultation according to past practice;(4) Whether the Chief Justice of India is entitled to act solely in his individual capacity, without consultation with other Judges of the Supreme Court in respect of all materials and information conveyed by the Government of India for non-appointment of a judge recommended for appointment;(5) Whether the requirement of consultation by the Chief Justice of India with his colleagues, who are likely to be conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court refers to only those Judges who have that High Court as a parent High Court and excludes Judges who had occupied the office of a Judge or Chief Justice of that Court on transfer from their parent or any other Court;(6) Whether in light of the legitimate expectations of senior Judges of the High Court in regard to their appointment to the Supreme Court referred to in the said judgment, the 'strong cogent reason' required to justify the departure from the order of the seniority has to be recorded in respect of each such senior Judge, who is overlooked, while making recommendation of a Judge junior to him or her;(7) Whether the government is not entitled to require that the opinions of the other consulted Judges be in writing in accordance with the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment and that the same be transmitted to the Government of India by the Chief Justice of India along with his views;(8) Whether the Chief Justice of India is not obliged to comply with the norms and the requirement of the consultation process in making his recommendation to the Government of India;(9) Whether any recommendations made by the Chief Justice of India without complying with the norms and consultation process are binding upon the Government of India?”THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANSWERED THE REFERENCE IN FOLLOWING MANNER:“The questions posed by the Reference are now answered, but we should emphasise that the answers should be read in conjunction with the body of this opinion:1. The expression "consultation with the Chief justice of India" in Articles 217(1) and 222(1) of the Constitution of India requires consultation with a plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India. The sole, individual opinion of the Chief Justice of India does not constitute "consultation" within the meaning of the said Articles.2. The transfer of puisne Judges is judicially reviewable only to this extent: that the recommendation that has been made by the Chief Justice of India in this behalf has not been made in consultation with the four seniormost puisne Judges of the Supreme Court and/or that the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the transfer is to be effected and of the Chief Justice of the High Court to which the transfer is to be effected have not been obtained.3. The Chief Justice of India must make a recommendation to appoint a Judge of the Supreme Court and to transfer a Chief Justice or puisne Judge of a High Court in consultation with the four seniormost puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. Insofar as an appointment to the High Court is concerned, the recommendation must be made in consultation with the two seniormost puisne Judges of the Supreme Court.4. The Chief Justice of India is not entitled to act solely in his individual capacity, without consultation with other Judges of the Supreme Court, in respect of materials and information conveyed by the Government of India for non-appointment of a judge recommended for appointment.5. The requirement of consultation by the Chief Justice of India with his colleagues who are likely to be conversant with the affairs of the concerned High Court does not refer only to those Judges who have that High Court as a parent High Court. It does not exclude Judges who have occupied the office of a Judge or Chief Justice of that High Court on transfer.6. "Strong cogent reasons" do not have to be recorded as justification for a departure from the order of seniority, in respect of each senior Judge who has been passed over. What has to be recorded is the positive reason for the recommendation.7. The views of the Judges consulted should be in writing and should be conveyed to the Government of India by the Chief Justice of India along with his views to the extent set out in the body of this opinion.8. The Chief Justice of India is obliged to comply with the norms and the requirement of the consultation process, as aforestated, in making his recommendations to the Government of India.9. Recommendations made by the Chief Justice of India without complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation process, as aforestated, are not binding upon the Government of India.”

What is a Digital Certificate?A digital certificate is an identity card of the user who used the Internet for transactions or documents. It is a type of electronic "password" that allows any individual or organization to securely exchange data over the Internet.Digital Certificate is commonly used to initiate secure SSL connections between web browsers and web servers. It is issued by a third-party certification authority also known as CA verifies the owner's identity with this certificate.The digital certificate includes the certificate owner's name, a serial number, the date on which the valid certificates display and expires, a copy of the certificate owner's public key, and certificate authority's other digital certificates.There are two types of Digital Signature Certificate Services:Class2 Digital Signature CertificateThe main purpose of the Class 2 Digital Signature certificate is to verify the details of the signer. It re-affirms the already specified data of the user. It is used in various form-filling, online registration, email attestation, income tax filing, etc.Class3 Digital Signature CertificateClass 3 Digital Certificate especially used to confirm the identity of the vendors as well as buyers in any e-Procurement, e-Tendering and e-Bidding process. It can be issued to individuals as well as organizations.What is a Digital signature?A Digital Signature is a scientific system for validating the authenticity of digital communications or documents. A digital signature is validating the authenticity of digital documents, software, and messages which was created by a known sender.Digital Signature can be used for online file transfer, sensitive documents sharing, authenticated or private software distributions, and financial transactions for the security of data.How different a digital certificate from a digital signature?A digital signature is a cryptography code attached to other files for identification while a digital certificate is a file that has a digital signature.The Digital certificate is what attaches the signing key for the entity while the digital signature is the only one that can tell the client how authentic the certificate is.A digital signature verifies the validation of a particular document and its source while a digital certificate builds a web site's identity and enhances the credibility of its certificate.The digital signature provides authentication, non-repudiation, and integrity while the digital certificate provides authentication and security of that e-sign holder.Final ThoughtsA digital signature is validating the authenticity of digital documents, software, and messages which was created by a known sender which is issued by a third-party Certificate Authority (CA). The CA verifies the identity of the certificate owner.