Tender conditions upheld as reasonable for bidder integrity, safety and compliance; judicial review in contracts limited to arbitrariness, mala fides or public interest, with deference to administrative latitude.

Judgment :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. Directorate of Women Empowerment and Child Development, Uttarakhand invited bids for supply of Educational School Kits by issuing a notice inviting tender dated 18.12.2025. Petitioner submitted bid pursuant to said notice, as is apparent from averments made in para 11 and 13 of the writ petition.

2. Petitioner apprehends that his bid may be rejected due to certain conditions mentioned in the bid document, therefore, he has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:-

(i) A writ order, order direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned clause 1(Ga) and 1 (Da) of the additional terms and conditions of bid document bearing no. GEM/2025/B7019467 dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) as well as the condition no. 2(4) of the corrigendum dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) issued by the Directorate of Women Empowerment and Child Development Department.

3. Petitioner has challenged Clause 1 ¼x½ and 1 ¼M-½ of the additional terms and conditions of the bid x document. Clause 1¼x½ requires every bidder to submit an affidavit that he is not black listed by any Agency/Central or State Government and; further that he is not involved in any litigation with any Agency/Central or State. Clause 1¼?k½ requires each bidder to submit test report from a Government Laboratory, certifying that the material used in the Pre- School Kit is Food Grade, Non-Toxic and Non-Hazardous.

4. Clause 1¼M-½ requires each bidder to submit sealed sample of items mentioned in Serial No. 1 to 17 of pre-school kit in corrugated cardboard carton. Petitioner has also challenged the condition of submitting “no dues certificate” issued by Jurisdictional Goods and Service Tax (GST) Authority, which was added by Corrigendum issued on 29.12.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement of submitting affidavit by each bidder “that it is not involved in any litigation with any Agency/State or Centre Government”, is arbitrary and it does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition of submitting test report from Government Laboratory that the material used in pre- school kit is Food Grade, Non-Toxic and Non-Hazardous, is also arbitrary, which restricts competition. He further submits that the condition mentioned in Clause ¼M-½ is contrary to Office Memorandum dated 15.10.2003 issued by Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, as it makes the decision too subjective and may result in award of contract at higher rates.

6. This Court is not impressed by the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Directorate of Education & others vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & others, reported as 2004 (4) SCC 19, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“9. It is well settled now that the courts can scrutinise the award of the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, there are inherent limitations in the exercise of the power of judicial review in such matters. The point as to the extent of judicial review permissible in contractual matters while inviting bids by issuing tenders has been examined in depth by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] . After examining the entire case-law the following principles have been deduced: (SCC pp. 687-88, para 94)

“94. The principles deducible fro