Point of Law : No doubt, tender conditions, if any, contained in tender document being totally contrary to basic formalities and rules occupying the field can be interfered by Constitutional Courts while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Respondents vide e-tender notice dated 22.07.2021, invited tenders from the registered firms or any legal entities for providing sanitation services at Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Govt. Medical College and Hosptial, Chamba. Copy of relevant extract of e-tender notice dated 22.07.2021 along with requisite tender document stands placed on record as Annexure P-1. After submission of tender by various participants including petitioner, respondents issued corrigendum dated 07.08.2021, whereby condition with regard to minimum annual turnover came to be enhanced from Rs. 30 lacs per year to Rs. 1 Crore 50 lacs, Annexure P-2. Though, respondents after being asked by petitioner for clarification, issued clarification dated 16.08.2021 with regard to turn over, but cancelled the earlier tender process initiated vide e-tender notice dated d22.07.2021 and again invited tenders vide e-tender notice dated 04.01.2022 qua the same work at the same Institution, Annexure P-4. Vide corrigendum dated 10.01.2022, respondents again changed the condition of turnover and enhanced the minimum turnover from Rs.1.5 Crore to Rs.5 Crore in each year, Annexure P-5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid change made in the tender condition by way of corrigendum, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following substantive relief:-

“1 That the tender process initiated by the respondents vide tender inviting notice dated 04.01.2022, corrigendum dated 04.01.2022 contained in Annexure P-4 and corrigendum dated 10.01.2022 contained in Annexure P-5, whereby the annual turnover certificate for last three years having minimum turnover of Rs.5 crore in each is required may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.”

2. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. While inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 06.02.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 424 of 2019, titled M/s Rakesh Kumar and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Mr. Vaidya, contended that issue sought to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated and as such, present petition deserves dismissal out rightly.

3. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel representing the petitioner while making this Court to peruse the documents placed on record along with the petition, strenuously argued that repeatedly tender conditions came to be changed by respondents with a view to give undue advantage to their favourites. He argued that otherwise also condition of Rs.5 Crore of turnover in each year could not have been made in tender document by respondents because in that eventuality, none of the local person from the State of Himachal Pradesh would be able to participate in tender. He argued that respondents with a view to oust the petitioner from participating in the tender process has made unilateral change in the turn over condition, which otherwise at the time of issuance of e-tender notice dated 22.07.2021, was Rs.30 lac per year and thereafter was enhanced to Rs.1 Crore 50 lacs. While inviting attention of this Court to representation, Annexure P-8, Mr. Vashista, contended that representation having been filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 19.04.2022, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 505/2022 is being not decided by the respondents.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, especially, corrigendum dated 10.01.2022, Annexure P-5, whereby condition with regard to minimum turnover came to be changed from Rs.1.5 Crore to Rs.5 Crore, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the action of respondents, who otherwise are fully competent to change the tender conditions prior to submission of bid. It has been repeatedly held by Hon’ble Apex Court as