Back
SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Court emphasized that the doctrine of level playing field requires that the gates of competition be open to all bidders who are equally qualified, ensuring fairness and equal opportunity in government procurement processes (!) (!) .
The eligibility criteria in tender notices must have a rational nexus with the objective of the procurement and should be framed to encourage wider participation and secure the best outcome for the State, thereby safeguarding public interest and the public exchequer (!) .
The Court clarified that the State has the authority to set tender conditions, but such conditions must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or malicious. The Court will not interfere with tender terms unless they are found to be arbitrary or actuated by mala fides (!) .
Restrictions based on past local performance, such as requiring supply experience within the State, can create artificial barriers that violate constitutional rights, particularly Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), by excluding capable suppliers from outside the State without just cause (!) (!) .
The Court held that confining eligibility to local suppliers is irrational and disproportionate to the goal of ensuring effective delivery of services, especially when supply of goods like sports kits does not involve security risks or special considerations that justify such restrictions (!) (!) .
The impugned tender condition, which excluded suppliers without recent supply experience in Chhattisgarh, was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of constitutional guarantees. It was found to restrict competition and promote cartelization (!) (!) .
The Court rejected the justification that regional security concerns or the state’s affected status justified exclusion of outsiders, emphasizing that such reasons are untenable for non-security-related supplies like sports kits and that local engagement can be achieved through supply chain arrangements (!) (!) .
As a result, the Court quashed the impugned tender conditions and orders, and permitted the respondents to issue fresh tender notices that comply with constitutional principles, ensuring wider participation and fair competition (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or specific legal recommendations based on these points?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments of the parties in the case (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis of tender conditions and legal principles (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. final conclusion and order of the court (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to orders dated 11.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 passed in three Writ Petitions preferred by the appellant. The High Court of Chhattisgarh by the said orders, has repelled the challenge to the impugned tender condition contained in three tender notices dated 21.07.2025 which were issued for supply of Sports Kits to the students of Government Primary School, Government Upper Primary Schools and Government High and Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Chhattisgarh.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals which lie in a narrow compass, are as under:
(I) FACTS
4. The appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and claims to have experience of supplying Sports Kits to various Departments of the States of Bihar, Karnataka, Gujarat and Government of NCT Delhi. The respondent No. 1 is State of Chh
(1) Government Contract – Tender – Doctrine of level playing field requires that gates of competition be opened to all who are equally placed.(2) Government Contract – Tender – Eligibility criteria m....
Tender conditions permitting out-of-state participation enhance competition and do not violate constitutional provisions regarding fairness and freedom of trade.
Tender conditions cannot differentiate based on ownership without rational basis, violating constitutional principles of equality and fairness. (Articles 14 and 19(1)(g))
Judicial review of tender conditions is restricted to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, reinforcing that the authority determining eligibility criteria has the discretion and expertise in c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of judicial review in tender matters, the need for commercial prudence in evaluating tenders, and the importance of fairness and non....
The imposition of arbitrary turnover requirements in tender processes, lacking rational justification, violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, ensuring fair opportunity and competition....
Eligibility for contracting: To foster competition, firms and individuals to offer goods, work, and services required for the program, any conditions for participation shall be limited to those that ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
