Micky Traders vs L. R. Y. Labour Contractor

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Tenders - Judicial Review - Scope and ambit - Court is concerned with the manner in which the decision is taken and not with the decision itself - Review lies on grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Tendering authority is the best person to interpret the terms of its tender, provided the reading is one which the words can bear and is not unfair, perverse or arbitrary. (Paras 14-19)

(B) Experience Criteria - Specialized vs Incidental experience - Experience in organizing events as a lessee paying rent to an authority is not equivalent to experience in collecting user charges on behalf of a public body - Treating incidental collection as specialized experience renders the eligibility condition meaningless. (Paras 25-27)

(C) General Principles - Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate - A party cannot press for a construction of a clause that contradicts its own past conduct in identical proceedings involving the same contractual language. (Para 32)

(D) Public Revenue - Ineligibility cannot be cured by the fact that a bid is higher than others - Revenue considerations cannot override the essential eligibility conditions of a tender. (Para 34)

Facts of the case:
A tender was invited for the recovery of user charges for public infrastructure. The highest bidder was awarded the contract. The second highest bidder challenged this on the ground that the highest bidder lacked the mandatory two years of experience in collecting user charges, as required by the enlistment instructions. The highest bidder relied on experience as an organizer of fairs. The High Court quashed the award, finding the highest bidder technically non-responsive and ineligible.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the role of an event organizer/lessee is fundamentally different from that of an agent appointed to collect and remit statutory charges. Furthermore, the certificates provided did not establish a legal nexus between the bidder and the firms mentioned. The bidder's prior acceptance of similar disqualifications in other tenders also precluded them from claiming a contrary interpretation of the identical clause.

Issues: Whether the interpretation of the experience clause by the tendering authority was arbitrary and whether the experience of organizing fairs satisfies the requirement for collecting user charges.

Ratio Decidendi: An interpretation of a tender clause that is manifestly inconsistent with the language of the document or is patently arbitrary is subject to judicial review. Specialized experience required for revenue collection cannot be substituted by incidental money handling in different commercial dealings. Eligibility is a mandatory prerequisite and cannot be waived for the sake of higher revenue.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Tender dispute regarding eligibility criteria — Experience clause for collection of user charges — Interpretation by tendering authority. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )

2. H1 Bidder: Authority's interpretation should be deferred to. H2 Bidder: H1 lacked mandated experience under clause. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )

3. Committee's interpretation was patently arbitrary and dehors the terms, as it treated incidental collection as equivalent to required specialised experience. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )

4. An authority's interpretation of its own tender is final only if manifestly consonant with its language; otherwise, courts may intervene. (Para 18 , 19 , 33 )

5. Appeals dismissed and impugned High Court order upholding rejection of H1 Bidder's bid affirmed. (Para 36 , 37 )

6. What is the scope of judicial review of a tendering authority's interpretation of its own tender document?

The interpretation is ordinarily final, provided it is manifestly in consonance with the tender language. Courts intervene only if the interpretation is arbitrary, irrational, or dehors the terms. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )

7. Can the experience of collecting incidental charges from unrelated commercial activities satisfy a tender condition for specialised experience in collecting user charges for a public body?

No. Incidental collection from a fundamentally different commercial arrangement (e.g., organising a cattle fair) does not meet a clause requiring proven experience of specialised, accountable collection for Government bodies. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )

8. Can a bidder rely on the experience of third-party entities without establishing its proven nexus to the bidder through proper documentation?

No. An eligibility criterion cannot be satisfied by an unverified assertion of identity between a bidder and unrelated third parties without substantiating documents like partnership deeds. (Para 29 , 30 )

9. Can a party approbate and reprobate on the interpretation of an identical tender clause depending on its convenience?

No. Having accepted a construction of an identically worded clause when it led to its disqualification elsewhere, a bidder cannot press for an opposite construction when it serves its interest. (Para 31 , 32 )

10. Can a higher financial bid cure a bidder's ineligibility under a mandatory experience clause?

No. Revenue considerations cannot cure ineligibility. Bids can only be compared among bidders who are eligible; otherwise, eligibility conditions would be rendered illusory. (Para 34 )

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A tender begins with competition, but it proceeds upon rules. The present appeals concern the meaning of one such rule: a requirement prescribing the experience which a bidder must possess before it may compete for a public contract. The question is how that requirement is to be understood and applied.

3. These appeals take exception to the order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.8671 of 2026, by which the High Court quashed the acceptance of the technical as well as the financial bid of Micky Traders (the H1 Bidder) and directed the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (the Board) and the Market Committee, Ludhiana (the Committee) to issue a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) in favour of the eligible tenderer. The H1 Bidder, being aggrieved, has challenged the same in an appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 22161 of 2026. The Board and the committee are also challenging the impugned order in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 23127 of 2026. L.R.Y. Labour Contractor (the H2 Bidder) is the primary respondent in both the appeals, who had filed the writ petition. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. On 13.02.2026, the Committee issued a Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT) inviting bids for recovery/realization of user charges for utilising Mandi infrastructure by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, eatables etc. for a period of twelve months, that is, from 01.04.2026 till 31.03.2027. Clause 11 of the DNIT required the bidders to submit the documents enumerated therein in digitally signed copies. The reserve price of the work was fixed at Rs.12,21,58,500/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Twenty-One Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) per annum.

5. In response to the DNIT, H1 Bidder, H2 Bidder and three other bidders submitted their bids. On evaluation, the technical bid of the H1 Bidder was found responsive and its financial bid of Rs.16,51,51,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crore Fifty-One Lakh Fifty One Thousand only) was accepted, being the highest bid received as against the H2 Bidder's bid of Rs.15,03,33,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Crore Three Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand only).

6. The H2 Bidder addressed an e-mail to the Secretary, Tender Opening Committee, Market Committee, Ludhiana, stating that the H1 Bidder did not possess the requisite experience of collection of parking fees or user charges and that the Board had erred in issuing an Enlistment Certificate dated 24.02.2026 in its favour. The objection notwithstanding, a LoA was issued to the H1 Bidder on 20.03.2026.

7. The H2 Bidder challenged the acceptance of the bid of the H1 Bidder before the High Court in a writ petition filed on 19.03.2026, on the ground that the experience certificate of the H1 Bidder reflected participation in cattle fairs from 16.12.2023 to 15.12.2024 and did not evidence two years' experience of collection of user charges or parking fees immediately preceding 31.12.2025, as required by Clause 9(c)(a) of the Instructions issued by the Board for enlistment of contractor firms.

8. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 27.05.2026, inter alia held that the technical bid of the H1 Bidder did not meet the eligibility criteria, and quashed the LoA dated 20.03.2026 as well as all the consequential actions. The Board and the Committee were directed to issue a LoA in favour of the eligible tenderer in accordance with law, and the writ petition was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, Civil Appeals arising out of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the H1 Bidder and by the Board arise for our consideration.

RIVAL SUBMISSIONS

9. Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, learned counsel for the H1 Bidder, submitted that the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind and ignores the pleadings of the H1 Bidder as well as those of the Board and the Committee, who had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 1153

Judicial review of tenders is limited, but courts can interfere if the authority's interpretation is patently arbitrary. Specialized experience requirements cannot be satisfied by incidental activities, nor can ineligibility be cured by a higher financial bid.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. What is the scope of judicial review of a tendering authority's interpretation of its own tender document?

7. Can the experience of collecting incidental charges from unrelated commercial activities satisfy a tender condition for specialised experience in collecting user charges for a public body?

8. Can a bidder rely on the experience of third-party entities without establishing its proven nexus to the bidder through proper documentation?

9. Can a party approbate and reprobate on the interpretation of an identical tender clause depending on its convenience?

10. Can a higher financial bid cure a bidder's ineligibility under a mandatory experience clause?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(SC) 1153

Judicial review of tenders is limited, but courts can interfere if the authority's interpretation is patently arbitrary. Specialized experience requirements cannot be satisfied by incidental activities, nor can ineligibility be cured by a higher financial bid.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. What is the scope of judicial review of a tendering authority's interpretation of its own tender document?

7. Can the experience of collecting incidental charges from unrelated commercial activities satisfy a tender condition for specialised experience in collecting user charges for a public body?

8. Can a bidder rely on the experience of third-party entities without establishing its proven nexus to the bidder through proper documentation?

9. Can a party approbate and reprobate on the interpretation of an identical tender clause depending on its convenience?

10. Can a higher financial bid cure a bidder's ineligibility under a mandatory experience clause?

Cases Referred (31)

Judicial Analysis