The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial interference in matters of tendering process and eligibility criteria, emphasizing the need to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism and the deference to the authority issuing the tenders in interpreting the tender documents and determining the eligibility criteria.

ORDER :

Caveat No.2124/2022:

With the appearance of Mr. M.A. Chashoo, AAG the caveat stands discharged.

WP(C) No.2416/2022:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging Bid No.GEM/2022/B/2606555 Dated:04.10.2022, whereby tenders were invited for execution of contract for supply of 87-90 HP, 4WDTractors with heated cabin as per the terms and conditions, technical specifications, commercial terms and conditions. It is submitted that condition No.7 incorporated in the tender document, which prescribes the eligibility criteria of the bidders, is tailor made to benefit a limited class of persons/companies. It has been submitted that the circulars issued by CVC provide that the prequalification criteria should neither be very stringent nor very lax to facilitate the entry of bidders. It has been further submitted that on an earlier occasion the respondents had invited bids vide GEM/2022/B/2115832 Dated 19.04.2022 for supply of same product with similar condition relating to eligibility criteria and the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing WP(C) No.968/2022 challenging the action of the respondents. According to the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 13.05.2022, whereby the respondents were directed to open the bids but they were directed not to finalize the contract by next date. The writ petition is stated to be still pending before this Court. It is contended that in order to circumvent the aforesaid order of the Court, the respondents cancelled the bid dated 19.04.2022 and issued fresh bid, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

3. According to the petitioner, the illegal action of the respondents has violated the fundamental right of the petitioner to participate in the bidding process and that action of the respondents is arbitrary and irrational. It is further contended that the respondents have acted in a mala fide manner in order to bestow favour upon their favorites.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of arguments of the case, reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition, whereas learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents were well within their powers to prescribe eligibility criteria for participation in the bidding process and that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decisions of the respondents in this regard.

5. Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to have a look at condition No.7 of the tender documents, which is the bone of contention. It reads as under:-

“7. Bidder shall have to upload the documentary evidence of Annual production of OEM of tractors which shall not be less than 20,000 units per annum continuously for the last 3 years. The figures submitted by the bidder shall have to be corroborated by and verified with the sales figures indicated by Indian Tractor Industry.”

6. According to the afore quoted condition, a bidder would become eligible to participate in the tendering process if his annual production of OEM of tractors is not less than 20,000 units per annum continuously for the last three years. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that such a stringent condition can be met only by a few suppliers in the whole country and it amounts to debarring the most of the prospective bidders, including the persons like the petitioner. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been done by the respondents simply to favour their favorites.

7. So far as the scope of judicial interference in the matters relating to the conditions, particularly those relating to prescription of eligibility criteria in the tender documents is concerned, the Supreme Court has repeatedly evolved the principle that scope of judicial review is very limited and the same has to be exercised only to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism.

8.