Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43199-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4492 of 2025 M/s Dhairya Enterprises A Duly Registered Partnership Firm Through Partner Shubham Dwivedi, S/o Shri Kalika Prasad Dwivedi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Geetanjali Park Mangla, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Work Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Capital Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Circle, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Rajeev Pandey, Sanskriti Vihar, Near Hyundai Showroom, Magarpara Road, Jarhabhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent No. 1 to 4/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. : None. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/08/2025
Legal Reasoning
1 Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 4. 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the NIT No. 212/G/2025-26 dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to issue fresh NIT without special conditions in accordance with law at the earliest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3 The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered in the respondent Public Works Department. The respondent-Superintendent Engineer issued e- procurement tender notice on 11.10.2024 inviting percentage rate tenders for "ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT OF FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM AN REFILLING ALL TYPE OF INSTALLED EXTINGUISHER IN HIGH COURT MAIN BUILDING, NEW 07 COURT BUILDING AND ITS PREMISES AT BODRI, BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH FOR THREE YEARS, with probable cost of Rs.166.95 lacs and the contractor registered in Class "C" and above 3 class were eligible to participate and the time allowed for completion is 36 months. The bid submission start date was 11.10.2024 at 5.30 p.m. and bid submission online due date was 01.11.2024 at 5.30 p.m. and physical submission last date was 05.11.2024 at 5.30 p.m. and bid opening date was scheduled on 06.11.2024 at 11 a.m. The said NIT contains a note whereby the intending bidder was required to have done for last 5 years one work of 50% of Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) or two works of 40% each of PAC and the above shall be certified by Executive Engineer. Apart from above the bidder was required to have experience of maintenance work of Fire Fighting System and also required to submit copy of P.F., E.S.I. registration etc. 4 According to Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner the conditions of above tender mentioned in note was to give advantage to the respondent No. 5 which was objected by the petitioner and after thorough examination of the contention of the petitioner by the Department, recommendations dated 22.10.2024 and 27.12.2024 were made and tender dated 11.10.2025 was cancelled by order dated 16.10.2024. Other contractors also raised objection along with petitioner. Thereafter, vide NIT dated 24.10.2024 same tender work was invited, whereby last date of submitting tender was fixed 13.11.2024 till 5.30 pm. It is important to mention here that no additional special condition was imposed in the NIT accepting the grievance as genuine and to provide competition in distribution of State largesse. However, shockingly and surprisingly, without assigning any reason, the NIT dated 24.10.2024 was cancelled by the respondent authorities and again a fresh tender was issued with special conditions on 04.08.2025 inviting percentage rate tenders for "AMC OF FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM AND REFILLING ALL TYPE OF INSTALLED EXTINGUISHER" IN HIGH COURT MAIN 4 BUILDING, NEW 07 COURT BUILDING AND ITS PREMISES AT BODRI, BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH, with probable cost of Rs. 92.75 lacs and the contractor registered in class "D" and above class were eligible to participate and the time allowed for completion is 31.03.2027. The bid submission start date was 04.08.2025 at 5.30 p.m. and bid submission online due date was 25.08.2025 at 5.30 p.m. and physical submission last date is 29.08.2025 at 5.30 p.m. and bid opening date is scheduled on 01.09.2025 at 11 a.m. From bare perusal of above NIT, it is evident that special conditions are again imposed whereby the contractor is required to have done for last 5 years one work of 50% of PAC and two works of 40% each of PAC and the above shall be certified by Executive Engineer. The contractor shall also require to have experience of maintenance work of Fire Fighting System. 5 Mr. Sharma submits that the instant writ petition is preferred against the selective special condition in impugned NIT dated 04.08.2025 only to create monopoly in favour of respondent No. 5, who is being awarded both online and ofÒine tender work of Fire Fighting Annual Maintenance contract as well as other Fire Fighting contract work of High Court of C.G., since year 2017 onwards continuously till date. The last contract period of respondent contractor has already been expired on 29.06.2024 but granting extension for more than 1 year without issuance of NIT, he is still continuing. It is also important to mention here that almost all the tenders have been taken by respondent-Contractor continuously from year 2017 to till date on above tender price, whereas the same Contractor had taken Fire Fighting Annual Maintenance work of Swami Vivekanand International Airport Raipur Chhattisgarh at below 20% of PAC because there is true competition, whereas so far as the work of High Court of Chhattisgarh, monopoly is created in favour of respondent 5 Contractor at the cost of public exchequer. The last Fire Fighting Annual Maintenance contract work order was issued on 30.06.2023 for the period ending on 29.06.2024 but the same is still going on. The tender price of said tender work was Rs. 54.50 lacs but the tender is awarded in above price of Rs. 59.63 lacs and due to continuance, the payment had already exceeded more than Rs. 1 Crore and respondent Contractor is working without issuance of tender on extension basis for more than one year. It is also very important to mention here that from year 2017 to till date, Fire Fighting related tenders are submitted by respondent Contractor alone and in 2-3 cases, when other bidders participated then they could not qualify the first round and were disqualified for the contract and in second round, respondent contractor was awarded the work. 6 It is further submitted by Mr. Sharma that the in the year 2017, the respondent Contractor was awarded High Court premises Fire Fighting System Maintenance Work with work order dated 30.01.2017 whereby PAC was 19.80 lacs but awarded on 3.268% above at Rs. 20.45 lacs. Thereafter, on 22.11.2017 without issuing any NIT, three work orders were issued on same date in favour of respondent contractor by splitting one work to avoid issuance of NIT and all three works were awarded in more than 5% above price, agreement number 41 bearing PAC was Rs. 4.98 lacs and contract awarded at Rs. 5.23 lacs, agreement number 42 bearing PAC Rs. 4.99 lacs and awarded at Rs. 5.25 lacs, agreement bearing PAC Rs. 4.98 lacs and awarded at Rs. 5.23 lacs. Thereafter by work order dated 31.03.2018 AMC of Fire Fighting System in High Court premises Bodri Bilaspur, was awarded to respondent contractor in 5.871% above price, whereby PAC was Rs. 20.22 lacs but contract was awarded at Rs. 21.41 lacs. By work order dated 11.09.2018, Maintenance of Fire Fighting System at New High Court premises Bodri, 6 was awarded in 8% above price whereby PAC was Rs. 4.91 lacs but contract was awarded at Rs. 5.30 lacs. By work order dated 05.10.2018 AMC of Fire Fighting System Work of High Court was awarded at 5.00% above price whereby PAC was Rs. 54.50 lacs and contract was awarded at Rs. 57.23 lacs and closed at Rs. 80 lacs. 7 It is next submitted by Mr. Sharma that by work order dated 04.10.2019, tender of providing Fire Extinguishers at High Court premises Bodri was awarded at 3% above price whereas PAC was Rs. 57.18 lacs and contract was awarded at Rs. 60.04 lacs. By work order dated 16.07.2020, tender of Fire Safety products for Hon'ble Chief Justice bungalow and Hon'ble Justices bungalows at residential complex Bodri was awarded at 9% above price whereby PAC was Rs. 10.62 lacs and contract was awarded at Rs. 11.58 lacs. On the same date, by work order dated 16.07.2020, tender of Fire Safety Products for New State JOTI Building at High Court was awarded at 8.615% above price whereby PAC was Rs. 19.03 lacs and contract was awarded at Rs. 20.67 lacs. By work order dated 04.08.2020, tender work of AMC Fire Fighting System at High Court premises at Bodri was awarded at 9% above price whereas PAC was Rs. 54.50 lacs and contract was awarded at Rs. 59.50 lacs but contract was closed at Rs. 72 lacs. Similarly, by work order dated 04.01.2022, tender work of AMC Fire Fighting System in High Court Premises Bodri was awarded at 9.46% above price whereby PAC was Rs. 54.50 lacs and contract awarded at Rs. 59.66 lacs but closed at Rs. 78 lacs and finally, by work order dated 30.06.2023 AMC of Fire Fighting System at High Court premises Bodri was awarded at 9.404% above price whereby PAC was Rs. 54.50 lacs and contract was awarded at Rs. 59.63 lacs but the final payment has already gone more than Rs. 1 Crore, though the period of contract has already ended on 29.06.2024 7 but without issuing any tender, the respondent contractor is still executing the work at more than 9% above price. 8 Mr. Sharma lastly submits that initially no special conditions were imposed and even if the Fire Fighting Maintenance Work is done by one firm of joint venture, then also the experience was accepted but by the impugned NIT, stringent condition is mentioned requiring the tenderer of having own experience of executing 50-40-40% work (Total 3 works) of tender work in recent 5 years of same nature work, meaning thereby the earlier experience before 5 years is of no value. Similarly according to PWD manual 50-40-40% work experience of PAC is required only if the contract work is more than Rs. 5 crores and not below Rs. 5 crores tender work, and thirdly, on the basis of same nature, the Fire Fighting Installation Work experience is also discarded and only the experience of Fire Fighting Maintenance Work is accepted which is absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable. Fire Fighting Installation work means while construction of any building Fire Fighting equipment like fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, fire alarms etc are installed in the building, but surprisingly, according to the respondent authorities, the contractor who had installed the entire Fire Fighting equipment / project in the building cannot execute the maintenance work of Fire Fighting. The Airport Authority accepted the installation work experience for maintenance tender work also. The petitioner had earlier completed same tender work of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the year 2012 of worth Rs.12.62 lacs, 07.01.2013 of worth Rs.19 lacs and 24.06.2013 of worth Rs.14.18 lacs and recently completed sub contract installation work of Construction of Commercial Retail (Formal & Informal) including Buildings and Services on plot No. E04, E09 & E10 of Phase-1, CBD Complex, Sector 21 at Naya Raipur, Fire Fighting Work of 8 more than Rs. 4.5 crores, but again the work done as sub contractor is not taken into consideration. The petitioner had earlier successfully executed installation work of fire fighting system of Chhattisgarh High Court Bodri, Bilaspur Railway Zonal Admin Building, Paryawas Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, CBD Building Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Academic Building at Nimora. Due to above malafide action of respondent authorities putting special conditions to favour their blue eyed boy i.e. respondent contractor, the petitioner is not able to participate in the above tender process and despite being qualified and eligible, except for said two special conditions, the petitioner and other contractors are even deprived to participate in the tender process of NIT dated 04.08.2025. Hence this petition. 9 On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 4 submits that the conditions prescribed in the tender are not tailor made so as to suit the respondent No. 5. Whosoever fulfills the tender conditions can participate and if the petitioner is not in a position to fulfill any of the conditions, the entire tender cannot be cancelled and issue fresh tender with conditions which may suit the petitioner. The petition has no substance and deserves to be rejected at the threshold. Placing reliance on the afÏdavit filed by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Circle Bilaspur pursuant to the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by this Court, Mr. Thakur submits that on 11.10.2024, NIT No. 223/G/2024-25 was floated by the ofÏce of the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Circle Bilaspur inviting bids from the interested bidders / contractors for AMC of Fire Fighting System and Refilling all type of installed extinguisher in High Court Main Building. Clause No. 4.6 of Appendix 2.10 of detailed Notice Inviting Tender which is a part of the aforesaid NIT dated 11.10.2024 specifically vests the right upon the 9 competent authority either to accept the entire tender or refuse the same, as the case may be. As the aforesaid NIT dated 11.10.2024 was floated by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Circle Bilaspur and as per the provisions contained in clause No. 4.6 of Appendix 2.10 of the NIT, the Superintending Engineer has authority and jurisdiction either to accept the tender for the whole work or to reject the tender as a whole without assigning any reason and such decision shall not be open to challenge in any forum or court of law, therefore, the SE had rightly cancelled the earlier NIT dated 11.10.2024. Thus, the cancellation of the earlier NIT dated 11.10.2024 was in accordance with law and there was no illegality or infirmity and there is no alleged favourtism in favour of any particular contractor. After cancellation of earlier NIT dated 11.10.2024, again NIT No. 247/G/2024/25 dated 24.10.2024 was floated by the ofÏce of the SE for the said work which was again cancelled in exercise of the power and authority conferred under clause No.4.6 of Appendix 2.10 of the NIT. Thereafter, the present NIT dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) was floated by the ofÏce of the SE after approval being accorded by the State Government. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity either in cancelling the earlier NIT or in issuing the present NIT. The Executive Engineer, PWD Division No. 2 Bilaspur vide its letter dated 02.04.2025 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle Bilaspur submitted a draft of the NIT for the subject work. While preparing the draft NIT, a comprehensive study of various tender documents of the same work was made and after careful evaluation of the tender documents of Airports Authority of India, Raipur, AIIMS, Raipur and Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority, Raipur, it was decided to include two conditions which the petitioner is objecting. The main reason behind inclusion of the said conditions is in conformity with the tender documents of the Airports 10 Authority of India, Raipur, AIIMS, Raipur and Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority, Raipur and the same has been included looking to the fact that the building for which the contract is to be awarded, is very important building wherein confidential and important records and documents are kept and accordingly, it was decided that the subject work should be awarded to an experienced firm. The ofÏce of the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Chhattisgarh, Raipur vide its letter dated 19/06/2025, accorded permission for publication of the NIT as per the proposal sent to it. Hence, this petition may be dismissed at the outset. 10 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11 The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that some special conditions have been imposed which are tailor made so as to give unwanted leverage to the respondent No. 5 who has been successful in bagging the work order with respect to various fire fighting and allied works in respect of the High Court Building. 12 In N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain1,, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Decision
“22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. 1 (2022) 6 SCC 127 11 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.” 13 Recently, the Apex Court, in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, {Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024, decided on 04.10.2024}, taking note of the decisions rendered in various other celebrated judgments, observed as under: “21. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsels for the Respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well settled that the decision of the government/ its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by malafides. Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner. 12 22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-established tenets of law pertaining to the scope of judicial intervention in Government Contracts. 23. In Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M & N Publications Limited and Others2, this Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review of award of contracts held: - “18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process”. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] where it was said that: (p. 144a) “The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.” By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the courts can certainly examine whether “decision-making process” was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India3, this Court had laid down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative action. “94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own 2 3 (1993) 1 SCC 445 (1994) 6 SCC 651 13 decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” 25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others4, as under: - “53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution.” 26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others5, this Court after discussing number of judgments laid down two tests to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender matters. They are: - “22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting 4 5 (2004) 3 SCC 553 (2007) 14 SCC 517 14 reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;” (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others6, while observing that the government contracts granted by the government bodies must uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with the contractual matters, it was observed in Para 50 as under: - “50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in government contracts, if granted by the government bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is favoured by the Court to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied. It is said that the constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. It is expedient that the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest.” 28. It was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsels for the Respondents relying upon the observations made in Central Coalfields Limited and Another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Others7, that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. However, in the said judgment also it is observed that if the employer has exercised the inherent authority to deviate from the essential term, such deviation has to be made applicable to all the bidders and potential bidders. It was observed in Para 47 and 48 as under:- “47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the 6 7 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574 (2016) 8 SCC 622 15 employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision “that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached” as held in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216]. 48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.” 14 The requirement of the respondent-authorities could be well understood by the respondents No. 1 to 4 itself and this Court cannot go into the minute details as to whether on any earlier point of time, the respondent No. 5 was awarded tender at a higher price and whether the present tender conditions are tailor made so as to suit the respondent No. 5 only. This Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the tender in question and this limitation should be kept in view, as it is settled law that Courts should be reluctant in interfering with 16 contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The petitioner may not be fulfilling the tender conditions as stated in the present NIT, but it cannot be said that there may not be any other intending bidder who does not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the NIT by the respondents No. 1 to 4. 15 In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.28 19:46:32 +0530