The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in tender conditions, emphasizing the authority of the tendering entity to interpret and appreciate its requirements, and the need for judicial restraint and limited interference in technical evaluations of tenders.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Mr. C.S. Rawat, Advocate, has filed his “Authority” on behalf of the respondent no. 2, the same is accepted, and is taken on record.

2. The petitioner to the present writ petition is a prospective tenderer in pursuance to the invitation of bids, as it was floated by the respondents, for the purposes of fee, for the executing a contract for recovery of the Mussoorie Eco Tourism, the period from 01.06.2022 to 31.03.2023 and for the purposes of collecting the toll charges. The petitioner has raised his grievances, as against the tender condition of Technical Bid (k) Nos. 2 and 4 itself, which are extracted hereunder:

^^2- ;g fd mRrjk[k.M jkT; ds fdlh Hkh uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~ vFkok uxj fuxe esa U;wure 50-00 yk[k Áfro"kZ dk dk;Z djus dk Áek.k i= layXu djuk gksxkA

3- ;g fd ftykf/kdkjh vFkok mi&ftykf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kjksa ls fuxZr pfj= Áek.k i=] ftldh vof/k tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls 06 ekg gks ÁLrqr djkuk gksxkA**

3. In fact by virtue of the tender condition no. 2, it had been provided, that the prospective tenderer should have an experience of having performed a work of minimum value of Rupees Fifty Lakh, with any Nagar Palika Parishad or Nagar Nigam of the State of Uttarakhand. Secondly, he has agitated his grievances against the condition of clause no. 4, of the tender document, which provided that a character certificate of the prospective tenderer, has had to be valid, from the date of its issuance for the period of six months, which has been issued by any District Magistrate or Sub-District Magistrate.

4. The petitioner submits that he is the resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and he has already been issued with the character certificate, which is valid for three years, and in that eventuality, the condition imposed by clause no. 4, would result into an automatic exclusion of the petitioner, from participating in the bidding process. Coupled with the fact his argument is that clause no. 2, also which stipulates, that there has had to be an experience of having worked with any Nagar Palika Parishad or Nagar Nigam of the State of Uttarakhand, would be discriminatory because the petitioner, who is the resident of the State of U.P. would be ousted, from participating in the bidding process as invited by the respondents by the tender bid floated by them.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regards to the aspect of arbitrariness pertaining to the aforesaid two clauses, is not acceptable by this Court for the reason being, that since the local body being a distinct legal entity, having its creation under the special statute, has got its exclusive powers which falls with their decision making domain, to impose any conditions in the bidding document, which suits its purpose; for the purposes of invitation of bids. Ouster of a proposed applicant, who expects to participate will not have the liberty or choice to put a challenge to the said condition on the ground of arbitrariness, because the stipulations provided, therein, is not discriminatory, but rather an essential conditions to determine the credentials of the proposed tenderer, as to whether he would suited be for the proposed purpose, for which the tenders have been invited.

6. The stipulations of imposing the conditions in the tender document this Court is of view that it is exclusively the prerogative of the author of the tender, who is the best person to understand, and appreciate the requirement of the tenders, it is not technically and practically possible for the courts to interpret, as to the conditions, which has been imposed in the tender, whether it suits the need of the employer or not, and even if it results into an ouster of the proposed tenderer, though he may not be having any indefeasible rights under law to participate, but the right of an author of the tender to impose any condition has been exclusively vested to be falling within its domain of the decision making process, as it has been laid down by the H