MAY 29, 2025 Pankaj Securi ecurity Services and another … v. Ve Union Territo erritory of Chandigarh and another other
Case Details
CWP NO.16186 OF 6 OF 2025 (O&M) IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.1618 .16186 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED O VED ON: MAY 28, 2025 DATE OF DE F DECISION: MAY 29, 2025 Pankaj Securi ecurity Services and another ….Petitioners Versus Ve Union Territo erritory of Chandigarh and another other ….Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP CORAM : HO HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPI HO DEEPAK SIBAL LAPITA BANERJI Present : M Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. fo with Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate with M M Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate, garh. For respondent-U.T.Chandigarh. Fo LAPITA BANE ANERJI, J. The prayer in the present writ peti Th rit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitu onstitution of India is for issuance ance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quash i quashing Clauses 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 o .1.4 of the additional terms and conditions of th s of the Auction Notice (Annexure P ure P-2). 2. An auction notice was floated An floated by Union Territory of Chandigarh, Tr arh, Transport Department for allotme llotment of Transit Lodge (Room Nos.46 to 54, 6 o 54, 61 and three hall) at 1st Floor, I loor, ISBT-17 of Inter-State Bus Terminal (for l (for short “ISBT”), Sector-17, Ch 7, Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Transport Unde t Undertaking (CTU) is in possession ssion of 10 rooms and 03 halls at ISBT and inten d intended to allot them on monthly onthly rentals/licence basis for a period of three three years. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.05.29 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 6 CWP NO.16186 OF 6 OF 2025 (O&M) 3. The said auction notice was in the Th in the nature of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). NIT). The bidders had to qualify in t fy in the technical bid as well as financial bid for allotment of licenses. The di The dispute herein relates to the conditions stip s stipulated in Clauses 2.1.3 and 2.1 nd 2.1.4 of the additional terms and conditions ditions for allotment and Clauses 2.1 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are extracted hereinafter, for er, for ready reference: “2 The bidder shall p “2.1.3 annual turnover certificate of Rs. an fin financial years duly certified by th same grade. sa ll provide minimum average f Rs.1.5 Crore in the last three by the Chartered Accountant in 2.1 The bidder shall pro 2.1.4 in in same trade at ISBT, Railway S i.e w.e.f 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2025 i.e l provide two years experience ay Station in the last five years 025.” 4. Learned counsel appearing on Le g on behalf of the petitioners submits that th that the stipulation with regard to Rs to Rs.1.5 Crore annual turnover for the last thre st three years is arbitrary, unreasonabl sonable and such a stipulation has been made in in colourable exercise of power. I wer. In respect of Clause 2.1.4, learned counse counsel for the petitioners argues th ues that even though two years experience “in in same trade” could have been e been stipulated but two years experience in th ce in the “same trade at ISBT or Railw ailway Stations” in the last five years could no uld not be stipulated as the same had e had no reasonable nexus with the object that w t that was sought to be achieved. 5. 6. Issue notice. Iss
Legal Reasoning
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 Page 2 of 6 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, the 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 Page 3 of 6 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 for n to ensure that the contractor sources to successfully execute If its or 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 to se settled by a long line of decisions decisions clearly recognize that de Government and its instrumentali Go of of contract is subject to judicial r aggrieved party, submission of a ag notice inviting such tenders is no no wh which the State or its agencies a ac accept. The bidders participatin cannot, therefore, insist that their ca sim simply because a given tender de depending upon whether the con property or for execution of pr Go Government. All that participating fai fair, equal and non-discriminatory evolution of their tenders. It is a ev aw award of a contractor is essentiall wh which must be determined on the are relevant to such commercial ar ter terms subject to which tenders are jud judicial scrutiny unless it is foun tailor-made to benefit any partic tai ten tenderers. So also, the authority into negotiations or grant relaxati int 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 Page 4 of 6 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 re terms governing the tender proces ter 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 Page 5 of 6 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 Page 6 of 6