Tender conditions should support local economic policies, and judicial review is limited unless actions are arbitrary or discriminatory.

JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. As the matter is of some urgency, this writ petition even though an affidavit on behalf of the State respondents is not yet on record, the same is being disposed of today itself as the last date for submission of bids is fixed on 15-10-2024 at 2 PM.

2. The writ petitioner which is a registered company being aggrieved with the impugned Notice Inviting Quotation (NIQ) dated 10-09-2024, calling for bids for supply of Aluminum Roofing Sheets on the ground that the general terms and conditions as contained in the NIQ have limited the bidding to local entrepreneurs only is before this Court assailing the same.

3. Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the NIQ at clauses 1, 3, 6, and 13 has prescribed conditions wherein clause 1 restricts the bidders to local entrepreneurs having their manufacturing units in the State of Meghalaya, clauses 3 and 6 that all quotationers be registered with the Meghalaya Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2024 and clause 13 that non-tribal quotationers, should furnish Trading license from the concerned District Council, which he contends has restricted eligible firms such as the petitioner from participating, thereby denying reasonable opportunity, which is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the respondents in the NIQ have inserted these conditions which are arbitrary and discriminatory and the same is not in line with the earlier quotations in the past years for the same product, inasmuch as, in clause 3 of the financial bid, it has been stated that the provision of clause 8 (i) of the Meghalaya Procurement Preference Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises, 2020 shall apply, and that the decision of the tender committee will be final, whereas the said item i.e. Aluminum Roofing Sheets is not a reserved item only for MSME bidders as per the website of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises.

4. Learned counsel submits that the tender conditions being offensive and discriminatory and in violation of Article 14, the instant case is a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Union of India & Ors. vs. Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 499, to impress upon the point that in the matter of awarding contracts, inviting tenders is considered to be one of the fair ways and that any reservations or restrictions should not be arbitrary and must be justifiable.

5. Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E.R.Chyne, learned GA in the course of proceedings on 01-10-2024, had produced a corrigendum dated 30-09-2024, whereby he had submitted that the terms of the tender especially at clause 1 had been relaxed to include all bonafide citizens of India and changed to bidders preferably having their manufacturing units in the State of Meghalaya, which has thus removed the offending clauses. He has further submitted that the clauses as framed, were in furtherance and in line with the Meghalaya Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2024 to specifically encourage investment and to create employment within the State of Meghalaya. In this context, he submits that the MIIPP Policy, 2024 had been put in place by the State Government, as a strategic unified framework to draw investments and the policy is aligned with the Govt. of India’s Uttar Poorva Transformative Industrialization Scheme (UNNATI), 202