MAY 29 & Anr. v. Ve Union Territo erritory of Chandigarh other & Anr.

Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate M cate and Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate, acce e, accept notice on behalf of respon respondent-U.T. Chandigarh and submits that th that the aforesaid stipulations have be ave been imposed in order to get suitable candid candidates/companies/organizations/fir ions/firms/agencies with requisite experience in t in the same trade at ISBT or railwa ilway stations, having sufficient financial capac capacity to execute the contract. S act. Such conditions have been SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.16186 OF 6 OF 2025 (O&M) stipulated in pu in public interest so that the genera general public could be provided with hassle fre sle free lodging at bus stands and rail nd railway stations, at reasonable rates. Therefor fore, there was no arbitrariness riness or mala fide intention in stipulating the g the aforesaid conditions, in the in the qualification criteria for l bids. technical bids.

7. This Court has heard the learne Th learned counsel for parties and perused the ma the material on record.

8. The law is well settled with regard Th regard to the power of the Courts exercising the g the discretion under Article 226 o 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to ard to issue of quashing/modifying ifying the terms and conditions stipulated in N d in NITs. A discussion of the law g law governing the field is made hereinafter.

9. In “Michigan Rubber In (India ndia) Limited v. State of Karnataka” re reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216, th , the principles for interfering with tender con er conditions have been laid down by by the Apex Court. Relevant extract of the c f the case is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx “x

23. principles emerge: From the above ve decisions, following (a) The basic requireme in action by the State, and non- substance is the heartbeat of fa amenable to the judicial review State must act validly for a d whimsically for any ulterior purp the bounds of reasonableness, it into consideration the national pr ement of Article 14 is fairness -arbitrariness in essence and of fair play. These actions are view only to the extent that the a discernible reason and not purpose. If the State acts within s, it would be legitimate to take al priorities; Fixation of a value (b) within the purview of the execu have any role to play in this p down such action of the exec arbitrary or unreasonable. If conformity with certain healthy alue of the tender is entirely xecutive and the courts hardly his process except for striking executive as is proved to be . If the government acts in lthy standards and norms such SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.16186 OF 6 OF 2025 (O&M) as awarding of contracts by circumstances, the interference b by inviting tenders, in those ce by courts is very limited; (c ) In the matter of fo tender document and awarding is required to be conceded to the action of the tendering authorit and a misuse of its statutory pow is not warranted; (d) Certain preconditio tenders have to be laid down to has the capacity and the resour the work; and f formulating conditions of a ing a contract, greater latitude the State authorities unless the ority is found to be malicious powers, interference by courts ditions or qualifications n to ensure that the contractor sources to successfully execute If instrumentalities act the State or (e) public interest in awarding reasonably, fairly and in pub ence by court is very restrictive contract, here again, interference since no person can claim a fun fundamental right to carry on t.” business with the Government.”

10. In “Maa Binda Express Carrier In rier and another v. North-East Frontier Railw ailway and others” reported in (20 (2014) 3 SCC 760, it has been held by the Ape he Apex Court as under: “x “xxx The scope of judicial 8. 8. to award of contracts by the State settled by a long line of decisions decisions clearly recognize that Government and its instrumentali Go of contract is subject to judicial r aggrieved party, submission of a notice inviting such tenders is no which the State or its agencies a accept. The bidders participatin cannot, therefore, insist that their simply because a given tender depending upon whether the con property or for execution of Go Government. All that participating fair, equal and non-discriminatory evolution of their tenders. It is a award of a contractor is essentiall which must be determined on the are relevant to such commercial terms subject to which tenders are judicial scrutiny unless it is foun tailor-made to benefit any partic tenderers. So also, the authority into negotiations or grant relaxati icial review in matters relating tate and its instrumentalities is sions of this court. While these that power exercised by the ntalities in regard to allotment ial review at the instance of an of a tender in response to a s no more than making an offer ies are under no obligation to pating in the tender process heir tenders should be accepted der is the highest or lowest contract is for sale of public of work on behalf of the ating bidders are entitled to is a atory treatment in the matter of is also fairly well settled that tially a commercial transaction the basis of consideration that cial decision. This implies that s are invited are not open to the found that the same have been articular tenderer or class of rity inviting tenders can enter xation for bone fide and cogent SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.16186 OF 6 OF 2025 (O&M) reasons provided such relaxation terms governing the tender proces Xxx” Xx ation is permissible under the ocess.

11. In a recent judgment of Suprem In upreme Court of India “Airport Authority of I of India v. Centre for Aviation P on Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) and and others” reported in 2022 SCC O C OnLine SC 1334, it has been held that the se the settled position of law was that that the terms and conditions of the invitation ation to tender are within the dom domain of the tenderer/tender making author authority and are not open to judicia judicial scrutiny unless they are arbitrary, discri , discriminatory or mala fide. Consequ onsequently, the terms of NIT are not open to ju to judicial scrutiny being in the r the realm of contract and the government/ten ent/tender making authority must hav st have a free hand in setting the terms of contra contract.

12. In the present case, nothing has In g has been brought on record to show that the at the terms of auction notice/NIT are either discriminatory or based on mala mala fide intent or have been actuat actuated by bias. On merits, this Court finds not ds nothing arbitrary could be shown own in the aforesaid stipulations as intention of ion of the authorities was to provide rovide better facilities to general public. Therefo herefore, it had stipulated two years years of experience in the same trade at ISBT BT or railway station. To assess the financial capacity of the bidder in perf n performance of the contract, the , the stipulation with regard to minimum aver average annual turnover of Rs.1.5 Rs.1.5 Crores in the last three financial years years was set as a condition precedent cedent.

13. In the light of the discussion ma In on made hereinabove, this Court finds none of ne of the tender conditions/eligibility ibility criteria to be arbitrary or stipulated with d with mala fide intent or actuated b ated by bias. Accordingly, CWP No.16186 of 20 6 of 2025 is dismissed, being devoid o void of any merit. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.16186 OF 6 OF 2025 (O&M) Connected applications, if any, are Co ny, are also accordingly disposed

14. of. K SIBAL) (DEEPAK SIB DGE JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) (L JUDGE , 2025 MAY 29, 2025 shalini Whether Speak Whether report Speaking/reasoned: reportable: Ye Yes/No Yes/No Ye SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document