CWP NO v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Judgment

1. The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded The date when the judgment is uploaded The date when the judgment is uploaded 3. 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether pronounced or whether pronounced or whether pronounced pronounced The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable The delay, if any of the pronouncement of The delay, if any of the pronouncement of judgment, and reasons thereof judgment, and reasons thereof

11.05.2026 27.05.2026 27.05.2026 Full judgment judgment judgment the full the full the full

5. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate Present : Mr. Mr. Mr. J.S. Kaliraman, Advocate, for the petitioner. for the petitioner. Advocate with Kapoor, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, For respondents No.2 and 3. For respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mr. J. S. Gill, Advocate, For respondent No.4. For respondent No. LAPITA BANERJI, J. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the acceptance of Challenge in the present writ petition is to Challenge in the present writ petition is to the technical as well as financial bid of the the technical as well as financial bid of the respondent No.4 (Micky Traders) qua Tender ID: Tender ID:2026_DOA_161991_1 2026_DOA_161991_1 by respondents No.2 and 3 (official respondents). The petitioner has, inter alia (official respondents) inter alia, prayed for issuance of a CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to issue a Letter of writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to issue a Letter of writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to issue a Letter of Award (LOA) in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder. Award (LOA) in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder. Award (LOA) in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in short, is that despite the The grievance of the petitioner in short, is that despite the The grievance of the petitioner in short, is that despite the ing technically qualified in terms of the Detailed respondent No.4 not being technically qualified in terms of the Detailed respondent No.4 not be Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT), the official respondents illegally and Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT), the official respondents illegally and Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT), the official respondents illegally and arbitrarily accepted the technical and financial bids of the respondent No.4. arbitrarily accepted the technical and financial bid arbitrarily accepted the technical and financial bid

3. i)

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The brief facts of the case are as follows: The brief facts of the case are as follows: IT was issued by the Market Committee, Ludhiana- A DNIT was issued by the Market Committee, Ludhiana A respondent No.3 for recovery/realization of user charges for respondent No.3 for user charges for utilising Mandi Infrastructure by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, Infrastructure by retail and other vehicles fruits, vegetables, eatables etc for a period of 12 months from April 01, 2026 to March 31, 2027. for a period of 12 months from April 01, 2026 to March 31, 2027. for a period of 12 months from April 01, 2026 to March 31, 2027. ii) as applicable from February 01, 2026, The 2025 instructions as applicable from February 01, 2026, The regarding enlistment of contractor firms in Punjab State Agricultural regarding enlistment of contractor firms in Punjab State Agricultural regarding enlistment of contractor firms in Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Punjab Mandi Board)-respondent No Marketing Board respondent No.2 is to govern the DNIT in question which in question which was issued on February 13, 2026 was issued on February 13, 2026, by the respondent No.3. respondent No.3. iii) Evaluation of the technical bids was done on March 03, 2026 Evaluation of the technical bids was done on Evaluation of the technical bids was done on and the financial bids were opened on the same very day. As per the Tender and the financial bids were opened on the same very day. As per the Tender and the financial bids were opened on the same very day. As per the Tender Summary Report Report dated March 18, 2026 (Annexure P dated March 18, 2026 (Annexure P-5), the technical bid of respondent No.4 was found to be responsive. Upon acceptance of the of respondent No.4 was found to be responsive. Upon acceptance of the of respondent No.4 was found to be responsive. Upon acceptance of the technical bid of respondent No.4, the financial bid submitted by it was also technical bid of respondent No.4, the financial bid su technical bid of respondent No.4, the financial bid su accepted being the highest bidder (H-1). accepted being the highest bidder iv) Clause 9 (a) of the Mandi Board instructions regarding Clause 9 of the Mandi Board instructions regarding the enlistment of firms having requisite experience, stipulated that the firm enlistment of firms having requisite experience enlistment of firms having requisite experience applying for user charges for user charges, collection related works must have collection related works must have an experience CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) of collection of user charges/parking fees in v user charges/parking fees in various Government/Semi- Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) for the last 02 years (upto Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) for the Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) for the December 31, 2025). December 31, 2025). v) bidders were required The bidders were required The to submit to submit their respective Completion/ Experience indicating successful execution of Experience Certificate(s) indicating successful execution of annual collection of user charges/parking fees during the last 02 years (upto annual collection of user charges/parking fees during the annual collection of user charges/parking fees during the December 31, 2025). December 31, 2025). vi) According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 firm did not According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 firm did not According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 firm did not have the requisite experience as stipulated in the DNIT. Challenging the have the requisite experience as stipulated in the DN have the requisite experience as stipulated in the DN decision of the official respondents, the petitioner has knocked the doors of decision of the official respondents, the petitioner has knocked the doors of decision of the official respondents, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court alleging that the respondent No.4 could not meet the eligibility this Court alleging that the respondent No.4 could not meet the eligibility this Court alleging that the respondent No.4 could not meet the eligibility criteria on the basis of documents uploaded by it vis-à-vis the experience. criteria on the basis of documents uploaded by it criteria on the basis of documents uploaded by it

4. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned senior counsel Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to pages 76 to 80 of the of the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to pages 76 to 80 of the of the petitioner paper-book to submit that book to submit that arbitrarily and with arbitrarily and with mala fide intention, the official respondents held that respondent No.4 had 02 (+) years of official respondents held that respondent No.4 had 02 official respondents held that respondent No.4 had 02 experience in collection of user charges/parking fees, vide letter dated experience in collection of user charges/parking fees, vide letter dated experience in collection of user charges/parking fees, vide letter dated March 09, 2026. March 09, 2026.

5. to the notice of this Court that the It was further brought into the notice of this Court that the It was further brought Experience Certificate annexed at page 76 only indicated that Experience Certif icate annexed at page 76 only indicated that the respondent No.4 participated in Capital Cattle Fair, Rajpura for various respondent No.4 participated in Capital Cattle Fair, Rajpura respondent No.4 participated in Capital Cattle Fair, Rajpura fragmented periods and the last participation was from December 16, 2023 fragmented periods and the last participation was fragmented periods and the last participation was to December 15, 2024. The said Certificate was neither for a period of last to December 15, 2024. The said Certificate was neither for a to December 15, 2024. The said Certificate was neither for a 02 years ending on December 31, 2025 nor did it relate to collection of 02 years ending on December 31, 2025 nor did it relate to collection of 02 years ending on December 31, 2025 nor did it relate to collection of parking fees or user charges. Furthermore, it was contended that in tenders parking fees or user charges. Furthermore, it was contended that parking fees or user charges. Furthermore, it was contended that CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) floated for the same work Municipal Corporation, Patiala and for the same work by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala and Municipal Council, Rajpura, District Patiala, the bids of respondent No.4 Municipal Council, Rajpura, District Patiala, Municipal Council, Rajpura, District Patiala, held to be technically unresponsive as it did not fulfil the experience were held to be technically unresponsive as it did not fulfil the experience held to be technically unresponsive as it did not fulfil the experience criteria of 02 (+) years in collection of user charges/parking fees. (+) years in collection of user charges/parking fees. Notice of motion was issued on March 20, 2026. 6. Notice of motion was issued on March 20, 2026. Notice of motion was issued on March 20, 2026.

7. , Mr. Sharma, Mr. learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel appearing on behalf of , relying on his reply submits that respondents No.2 and 3 (Mandi Board), relying on his reply submits that respondents No.2 and 3 bids of both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were technically responsive bids of both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were technicall bids of both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were technicall and since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder (H-1) with bid price of and since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder (H and since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder (H Rs.16,51,51,000/ 16,51,51,000/- against the bid price of Rs.15,03,33,000/ against the bid price of Rs.15,03,33,000/- offered by the petitioner and the same was accepted by the Mandi Board petitioner and the same was accepted by the Mandi Board. There was neither any mala fide intention nor any ulterior motive in such acceptance, mala fide intention nor any ulterior motive in such acceptance by the Board.

8. It is further contended that the Mandi Board instructions relied It is further contended that the Mandi Board instructions relied It is further contended that the Mandi Board instructions relied in nature to ensure uniformity, better upon by the petitioner were directory in nature to ensure uniformity, better upon by the petitioner were computation and greater revenue for the Board computation and greater revenue for the Board, in public interest. The scope of Clause 9 (a), if considered in proper perspective, would only lead to the of Clause 9 (a), if considered in proper perspective, would only lead to the of Clause 9 (a), if considered in proper perspective, would only lead to the prospective bidder was required to have 02 years practical conclusion that a prospective bidder was required to have 02 years practical conclusion that of experience in collection of user charges/parking fees by December 31, of experience in collection of user charges/parking fees of experience in collection of user charges/parking fees and there was no mandatory requirement for the said experience of 02 2025 and there was no mandatory requirement for the said experience of 02 and there was no mandatory requirement for the said experience of 02 years to be immediately preceding the date of years to be immediately the date of December 31, 2025. In fact, respondent No.4 had a continuous experience in matters relating to respondent No.4 had a continuous experience in matters relating the respondent No.4 had a continuous experience in matters relating collection of user charges/parking fees from 2018 collection of user charges/ parking fees from 2018-19 upto February 2025 and sufficiently met the eligibility criteria relating to 02 years of experience. and sufficiently met the eligibility criteria relating to 02 years of experience. and sufficiently met the eligibility criteria relating to 02 years of experience. CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) Therefore, there was no infirmity on the part of the Mandi Board Therefore, there was no infirmity on the part of the Mandi Board in holding of respondent No.4 to be technically responsive. of respondent No.4 to be technically responsi the bid of respondent No.4 to be technically responsi

9. , Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Sourabh Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent No.1 appearing on behalf of the State respondent No.1 adopts the submissions Mandi Board. made on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3-Mandi Board. made on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3

10. Mr. Singh, learned senior advocate Mr. advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has been enlisted as a respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has been enlisted as a respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has been enlisted as a contractor vide letter dated February 24, 2026 by the Mandi Board, SAS contractor vide letter dated February 24, 2026 by the Mandi Board, SAS contractor vide letter dated February 24, 2026 by the Mandi Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali till February 28, 2027. He submits that the sole proprietor of Nagar, Mohali till February 28, 2027. He submits that the sole proprietor of Nagar, Mohali till February 28, 2027. He submits that the sole proprietor of firm, one Ravinder Singh, was a partner in various firms respondent No.4-firm, one Ravinder Singh, was a partner in various firms respondent No.4 which have been awarded contracts by Rural Development and Panchayat, which have been awarded contracts by Rural Development and Panchayat which have been awarded contracts by Rural Development and Panchayat cattle fairs in the State of Punjab from July Department for organising of cattle fairs in the State of Punjab from July Department for organising 11, 2018 till February, 2025. February, 2025. Experience in o Experience in organising cattle fairs would collection of user charges and the argument of also include experience in collection of user charges and the argument of also include experience firm not being experienced is the petitioner regarding respondent No.4-firm not being experienced is the petitioner regarding respondent No.4 completely misconceived and liable to be rejected. completely misconceived and liable to be rejected. completely misconceived and liable to be rejected.

11. He further submits that the primary He further that the primary contention of the petitioner regarding the respondent No.4 not hav sufficient experience of collection respondent No.4 not having sufficient experience of collection of user charges/parking fees for the last 02 years of user charges/parking fees for the 02 years upto December 31, 2025 was a hyper technical argument. Clause 9 (a) of the Mandi was a hyper technical Clause 9 (a) of the Mandi Board’s instructions was being wrongly interpreted by the petitioner instructions was by the petitioner and the object lause had to be seen to appreciate the clause in its proper behind the said clause had to be seen to appreciate the clause in its proper behind the said c . The tenderer was only required to have 02 years of requisite . The tenderer was only required to have 02 years of perspective. The tenderer was only required to have 02 years of experience with Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector experience with Gover Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs), within the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In other words, the (PSUs), within the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In other words, the (PSUs), within the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In other words, the CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) experience of the tenderer should not be less than 02 years as on December of the tenderer should not be less than 02 years as on December 31, 2025 and t and there was no requirement for tenderer tenderer to continue with the 02 years preceding the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In the work for 02 years preceding the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In the 02 years preceding the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In the interpretation given by the petitioner is accepted by the Court, event, such interpretation given by the petitioner is accepted by the Court, interpretation given by the petitioner is accepted by the Court, then it would lead to an absurd situation where a tenderer having experience then it would lead to an absurd situation where a tenderer having experience then it would lead to an absurd situation where a tenderer having experience of 04 years of ears of working with a Government/Semi working with a Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector (PSUs) would have to be declared ineligible even if his Undertaking (PSUs) would have to be declared ineligible even if his (PSUs) would have to be declared ineligible even if his contract tenure got over by December 25, 2025 due to contract tenure got over by , 2025 due to efflux of time. It is vehemently argued that the interpretation suggested by the petitioner to vehemently argued that the interpretation suggest vehemently argued that the interpretation suggest Clause 9 (a) is totally misconceived and liable to be rejected. Clause 9 (a) is totally misconceived and liable to be rejected. Clause 9 (a) is totally misconceived and liable to be rejected.

12. Next, he contends that the petitioner had not laid challenge to Next, he contends that the petitioner had not laid challenge to Next, he contends that the petitioner had not laid challenge to the enlistment of respondent No.4 in the present writ petition and therefore the enlistment of respondent No.4 in the present writ petition the enlistment of respondent No.4 in the present writ petition . on that count also the writ petition should fail. on that count also t

13. submitted that the scope for judicial review in cases Finally, he submitted that the scope for judicial review in cases Finally, h regarding allotment of contracts regarding allotment of contracts regarding allotment of contracts is very narrow and commercial is very narrow and commercial is very narrow and commercial State, while entering into a commercial considerations are paramount. State, while entering into a commercial considerations are paramount. transaction would weigh its profit/benefit before entering into transaction would weigh its profit/benefit before entering into such a contract. Since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder (H-1) and there was contract. Since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder contract. Since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder between the bid of respondent No.4 and difference of Rs.1.5 crores between the bid of respondent No.4 and difference of Rs.1.5 crores titioner, acceptance of its bid would only benefit the public exchequer. petitioner, acceptance of its bid would only benefit the public exchequer. titioner, acceptance of its bid would only benefit the public exchequer. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioner Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the decision making process by the State-respondents is either arbitrary or irrational process by the State respondents is either arbitrary or irrational or mala fide.

14. learned counsel for the parties and This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and This Court has heard perused the material on record. perused the material on record. CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M)

15. The Experience Certificate relied on by respondent No.4- The Experience Certificate relied on by respondent No.4 The Experience Certificate relied on by respondent No.4 Micky Traders along with his technical bid is reproduced hereinafter:- Micky Traders along with his technical bid is reproduced hereinafter: Micky Traders along with his technical bid is reproduced hereinafter: Sr No Name Name of Period 1 2 3 4 5 Shadab Rainder & Rainder & Company, Rajpura Shadab Rainder & Rainder & Company, Rajpura Rajpura, Mukatsar Cattle Fair, Cattle Fair, Rajpura Rajpura, Mukatsar Cattle Fair, Cattle Fair, Rajpura Capital Cattle Fair, Cattle Fair, Rajpura 2018-19 (11-7-2018 to 10-7-2019) 2019-20 (1-8-2019 31-7-2020) 2021-22 (28-7-2021 to 27-7-2022) 2022-23 (22-10-2022 to 21-10-2023) 16-12-2023 to 15-12-2024 Amount of contract (in Rs.) 72.02.50 Balance if Balance if NIL NIL Performance completed Satisfactory Remarks

72.43 cr. NIL NIL Satisfactory

72.45 cr. NIL NIL Satisfactory

72.46 cr. NIL NIL Satisfactory

93.90 cr. NIL NIL Satisfactory

16. One Ravinder Singh, sole proprietor of respondent No.4/ One Ravinder Singh, sole proprietor of respondent No.4 One Ravinder Singh, sole proprietor of respondent No.4 proprietorship concern was a partner in various other firms which had been proprietorship concern was a partner in various other firms wh proprietorship concern was a partner in various other firms wh organising cattle fairs in the State of Punjab. The given contracts for organising cattle fairs in the State of Punjab. The given contracts f Experience Certificate for organising cattle fair was for fragmented periods Experience Certificate for organising cattle fair was for fragmented periods Experience Certificate for organising cattle fair was for fragmented periods from July 11, 2018 to July 10, 2019, August 01, 2019 to July 31, 2020, July from July 11, 2018 to July 10, 2019, August 01, 201 from July 11, 2018 to July 10, 2019, August 01, 201 28, 2021 to July 27, 2022, October 22, 2022 to October 21, 2023 and 28, 2021 to July 27, 2022, October 22, 2022 to Oct 28, 2021 to July 27, 2022, October 22, 2022 to Oct December 16, 2023 to December 15, 2024. In this context, the Punjab December 16, 2023 to December 15, 2024. In this December 16, 2023 to December 15, 2024. In this (Regulation) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “1968 Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “1968 (Regulation) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “1968 Rules”) are referred to. Clause 6(1) of the 1968 Rules is reproduced Rules”) are referred to. Clause 6(1) of the 1968 Rules is reproduced Rules”) are referred to. Clause 6(1) of the 1968 Rules is reproduced hereinafter:- “Clause 6 The sites required temporarily for commercial Clause 6 (1) – The sites required temporarily for commercial or other purposes in connection with the cattle fair shall be or other purposes in connection with the cattle fair shall be or other purposes in connection with the cattle fair shall be allotted by the fair officer by auction before the commencement allotted by the fair officer by auction before the commencement allotted by the fair officer by auction before the commencement of the cattle fair. The successful bidder shall pay the full of the cattle fair. The successful bidder shall pay the full of the cattle fair. The successful bidder shall pay the full CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) ered at the auction at the fall of hammer amount of the rent offered at the auction at the fall of hammer amount of the rent off to the fair officer who shall issue a receipt therefore in Form to the fair officer who shall issue a receipt the to the fair officer who shall issue a receipt the C.F.R.3” C.F.R.3”

17. A perusal of the said Rules clearly indicates that a successful A perusal of the said Rules clearly indicates that a successful A perusal of the said Rules clearly indicates that a successful bidder would have to pay the full amount of rent offered at the auction at bidder would have to pay the full amount of rent offered at the bidder would have to pay the full amount of rent offered at the the fall of the hammer to the Fair Officer for using sites allotted in the cattle the fall of the hammer to the Fair Officer for using sites allotted in the cattle the fall of the hammer to the Fair Officer for using sites allotted in the cattle fair for commercial or other purposes, temporarily. The respondent No.4 fair for commercial or other purposes, temporarily. The respondent No.4 fair for commercial or other purposes, temporarily. The respondent No.4 has participated in cattle fairs and has been allotted sites there at but that in has participated in cattle fairs and has been allotted sites there has participated in cattle fairs and has been allotted sites there kes him eligible under Clause 9 (a) as per the Mandi Board kes him eligible under Clause 9 (a) as p no way makes him eligible under Clause 9 (a) as p qua the experience regarding collection instructions which specifically are qua the experience regarding collection instructions which specifically are of parking fees/user charges. of parking fees/user charges.

18. A perusal of Clause 9 (a) of the Mandi Board A perusal of Clause 9 of the Mandi Board instructions unambiguously indicates that the firms must unambiguously indicates must have an experience of collecting user charges/parking fees from various Government/Semi- collecting user charges/parking fees from various Government/Semi collecting user charges/parking fees from various Government/Semi Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) and the same was required to be for the last last 02 years (upto December 31, 2025) 02 years (upto December 31, 2025). The said Experience Certificate attached by the respondent No.4 to its technical bid is neither for Certificate attached by the respondent No.4 to its technical bid is neither for Certificate attached by the respondent No.4 to its technical bid is neither for collection of user charges/parking fees nor is it for a period of collection of user charges/parking fees is it for a period of last 02 years ending on December 15, 2024. ending on December 15, 2024.

19. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that contracts for organising cattle fairs are equivalent to contracts for for organising cattle fairs contracts for collection of user charges/parking fees by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, charges/parking fees by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, charges/parking fees by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, eatables etc, then also perusal of the Experience Certificate w eatables etc, then perusal of the Experience Certificate would not, by any stretch of imagination, can lead to the conclusion that the experience of any stretch of imagination, can lead to the conclusion that the experience of any stretch of imagination, can lead to the conclusion that the experience of from Cattle Fair, Rajpura from December 16, 2023 to respondent No.4 from Cattle Fair, Rajpura from December 16, 2023 to respondent No.4 December 15, 2024 could qualify as an experience for the December 15, 2024 could qualify as experience for the last 02 years CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) The words used in the tender documents cannot (upto December 31, 2025). The words used in the tender documents cannot (upto December 31, 2025). be ignored or treated as superfluous which would be the case if the be ignored or treated as superfluous which would be the case if the be ignored or treated as superfluous which would be the case if the contention of Mr. Singh, with regard to the time frame for the required contention of Mr. Singh, with regard to the time frame for the required contention of Mr. Singh, with regard to the time frame for the required experience is accepted. experience is accepted.

20. Mr. Singh relied on a decision of co-ordinate Bench dated May Mr. Singh relied on a decision of co Mr. Singh relied on a decision of co M/s Danial Masih Satprit Singh Bedi v. State of 17, 2016 passed in “M/s Danial Masih Satprit Singh Bedi v. State of 17, 2016 passed in “ Punjab and others” reported in 2017 (5) RCR (Civil) 382 Punjab and others 2017 (5) RCR (Civil) 382, to contend that the experience of a partner of a firm is to be counted towards the experience the experience of a partner of a firm is to be counted towards the experience the experience of a partner of a firm is to be counted towards the experience of the firm itself. Since this Court has not opined on that issue, reliance on of the firm itself. Since this Court has not opined on that issue, reliance on of the firm itself. Since this Court has not opined on that issue, reliance on for the purpose of adjudication of the the said judgment is not germane for the purpose of adjudication of the the said judgment is not present lis.

21. He has also relied on the decision of Apex Court in “Jagdish He has also relied on the decision of Apex Court in “ He has also relied on the decision of Apex Court in “ Mandal v. State of Orissa and others” reported in Mandal v. State of Orissa and others ” reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 to contend that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited while contend that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited while contend that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited while reviewing an administrative action. Unless reviewing an administrative action. Unless reviewing an administrative action. Unless is arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias or mala fide irrationality, unreasonableness, bias or mala fide, when a decision is made lawfully, it is not open for the Courts to sit in appeal and decide whether the lawfully, it is not open for the Courts to sit in appeal and decide whether the lawfully, it is not open for the Courts to sit in appeal and decide whether the decision is “sound ”. As long as the decision relating to the sound” or “lawful”. As long as the decision relating to the award of contract is and in public interest, the Court should not of contract is bona fide and in public interest, the Court should not interfere even if there is a procedural aberration interfere even if there is a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out. prejudice to a tenderer is made out.

22. There is no dispute with regard to the principle that the Courts There is no dispute with regard to the principle that the Courts There is no dispute with regard to the principle that the Courts should be extremely circumspect in judicial review to interfere with an should be extremely circumspect in judicial review to interfere with an should be extremely circumspect in judicial review to interfere with an administrative action/decision taken by the executive in tender matters/ administrative action/decision taken by the executive in tender matters/ administrative action/decision taken by the executive in tender matters/ commercial projects. However, the Courts are not powerless to interfere commercial projects. However, the Courts are n commercial projects. However, the Courts are n CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) when the essential/mandatory terms of the DNIT have been given a gobye when the essential/mandatory terms of the DNIT have been given a gobye when the essential/mandatory terms of the DNIT have been given a gobye by the tendering authority. Once such a course is adopted, it would lead the by the tendering authority. Once such a course is adopted, it would by the tendering authority. Once such a course is adopted, it would Courts to form an opinion that the tendering authority has acted arbitrarily, Courts to form an opinion that the tendering authority has acted arbitrarily, Courts to form an opinion that the tendering authority has acted arbitrarily, tionally, unreasonably and with bias and such an action of the irrationally, unreasonably and with bias and such an action of the tionally, unreasonably and with bias and such an action of the State/instrumentalities of the State would be amenable to judicial review. State/instrumentalities of the State would be amenable to judicial review. State/instrumentalities of the State would be amenable to judicial review.

23. A beneficial reference may be made to a recent decision of A beneficial reference may be made to a recent decision of A beneficial reference may be made to a recent decision of Apex Court in “Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krish Apex Court in “ Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi ” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2323, where the Apex Parishad and others” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2323, where the Apex Parishad and others Court interfered with the executive decision. The relevant extract of the said Court interfered with the executive decision. The relevant extract of the said Court interfered with the executive decision. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter: judgment is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx “xxx In tender matters, the Court exercising judicial review In tender matters, the Court exercising judicial re 11. 11. does not sit in appeal over the decision of a tendering authority does not sit in appeal over the decision of a tendering authority does not sit in appeal over the decision of a tendering authority regarding disqualification of bid. Only in cases where such regarding disqualification of bid. Only in cases where such regarding disqualification of bid. Only in cases where such decision is dehors the terms of the NIT or is patently arbitrary decision is dehors the terms of the NIT or is patently arbitrary decision is dehors the terms of the NIT or is patently arbitrary would the Court exercise powers of judicial review and set would the Court exercise powers of judicial review and set would the Court exercise powers of judicial review and set aside such a decision. side such a decision. Xxx” Xxx”

24. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/s In “Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/s In Anoj Kumar Ag Agarwala and others” reported in ” reported in (2020) 17 SCCases 577, the Apex Court held that the respondent No.2 failed to comply with the Apex Court held that the respondent No.2 failed to comply with the Apex Court held that the respondent No.2 failed to comply with the not providing the Security Deposit/Bank essential terms of the DNIT by not providing the Security Deposit/Bank essential terms of the DNIT by Guarantee for the stipulated period. Therefore, the executive action/ Guarantee for the stipulated period. Therefore, the executive action/ Guarantee for the stipulated period. Therefore, the executive action/ administrative decision merited interference even in tender mattes. A administrative decision merited interference even in tender mattes. A administrative decision merited interference even in tender mattes. A perusal of paragraph 16 of the judgment reiterating the position of law perusal of paragraph 16 of the judgment reiterating the position of law perusal of paragraph 16 of the judgment reiterating the position of law cinctly is reproduced hereinafter: succinctly is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx “xxx It is clear even on a reading of this judgment that the It is clear even on a reading of this judgment that the 16. 16. words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous treated as redundant or superfluous- they must be given treated as redundant or superfluous meaning and their necessary significance. Given the fact that meaning and their necessary significance meaning and their necessary significance CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) in the present case, an essential tender condition which had to in the present case, an essential tender condition which had to in the present case, an essential tender condition which had to be strictly complied with was not so complied with, the be strictly complied with was not so complied with, the be strictly complied with was not so complied with, the appellant would have no power to condone lack of such strict appellant would have no power to condone lack of such strict appellant would have no power to condone lack of such strict onation, as has been done in the compliance. Any such condonation compliance. Any such cond present case, would amount to perversity in the understanding present case, would amount to perversity in the understanding present case, would amount to perversity in the understanding or appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which or appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which or appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which must be interfered with by a constitutional Court.” must be interfered with by a constitutional Court must be interfered with by a constitutional Court [Emphasis Supplied]

25. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that by In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Cour In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Cour evaluating the technical bid of respondent No.4 to be of 02(+) years for evaluating the technical bid of respondent No.4 to be evaluating the technical bid of respondent No.4 to be collection of parking fees and user charges and finding its bid to be collection of parking fees and user charges collection of parking fees and user charges responsive is against the terms and conditions stipulated in the DNIT. responsive is against the terms and conditions stipulated in the DNIT. responsive is against the terms and conditions stipulated in the DNIT. Accordingly, the same is quashed and/or set-aside. All the consequential Accordingly, the same is quashed and/or set Accordingly, the same is quashed and/or set actions taken by the official respondents in favour of respondent No.4 actions taken by the official respondents in favour of respondent No.4 actions taken by the official respondents in favour of respondent No.4 pursuant to the said technical evaluation are also set pursuant to the said technical evaluation are also set-aside. Consequently, the official respondents are directed to proceed with the issuance of LOA in the official respondents are directed to proceed with the issuance of LOA in the official respondents are directed to proceed with the issuance of LOA in favour of the eligible tenderer, in accordance with law. favour of the eligible tenderer, in accordance with law. favour of the eligible tenderer, in accordance with law.

26. With the directions aforesaid, the writ petition being CWP With the directions aforesaid, the writ petition being C With the directions aforesaid, the writ petition being C No.8671 of 2026 is allowed. No.8671 of 2026 is

27. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIBAL) (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE MAY 27, 2026 6 Shalini Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No