Point of Law :
The principles that emerge from the above precedents are, the writ court has limited jurisdiction in matters concerning contracts and invitation to bid for contract. Court must adopt restraint in contract matters; the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal in such matters; the State/its instrumentalities have to be given greater latitude in formulating tender conditions and awarding of contracts. In matters concerning financial implications it should be left to the concerned authority to decide the conditions of eligibility and the price at which contract can be awarded. Courts cannot interfere in terms of invitation to tender. No one has a right to insist that the contract to be awarded to him; Courts can interfere only if actions of tendering authority is found to be malicious or misused statutory powers. That the process adopted and decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that no authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached and if public interest is affected

ORDER :

1. Tender notification was issued on 04.01.2020 for providing Supervisors and Workers on outsource basis in Entomology Wing of Serilingampally Zone of GHMC for a period of 11 months. The scope of work is to deploy the Anti-Larval Units and special/fogging units consisting of one Entomology Filed Assistant, Superior Field Worker and Field Workers, strength depends on the type of unit. The tender documents require the bidder to deploy the respective manpower with requisite minimum qualifications as mentioned in the tender document. Clause 2(c) prescribes the manpower so deployed should be able to perform the services mentioned therein. Clause-3 deals with eligibility criteria, which prescribes turn over in the last three financial years, minimum similar value of work experience in any Municipal Corporation, minimum turnover, submission of IT returns for three years and all other statutory compliances.

2. Petitioners challenge the tender conditions on the ground that 15 packages are made by clubbing 5 to 11 units for each package; allowing the persons who have not served as contractors for eradication of Mosquitoes; imposing penalty conditions in clause-11-(A)(3) if agency/contractor/worker is absent during the working hours.

3. According to the petitioners, they are the contractors performing outsourcing contract in Entomology eradication units in all the Municipal circles and earlier for each unit tenders were called separately and work was allotted, and in the said manner, petitioners secured the works and performed to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities. Petitioners have participated in more than one unit and obtained contract for more than one unit. On account of clubbing of several units into few packages, the turn over requirement is increased and the existing contractors cannot comply with the stringent conditions.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the terms of tender notification are unconstitutional, intended to deprive the existing small contractors having utilized their services for long time and the same is arbitrary and illegal. The conditions are made to suit the big contractors.

5. In other words, what is challenged in the writ petition is, reorganizing the sanitation units to control spread of larval in GHMC limits and prescribing certain stringent eligibility criteria in the tender notification to undertake the job of larval control.

6. In matters of formulating tender conditions, employer has wider latitude and scope of judicial review is minimal. At the threshold, Court cannot interject the tender process on the ground that some of the terms of invitation to tender are not palatable to a person who is not fitting into the parameters. It is within the domain of employer to prescribe tender conditions. Court may interfere, in exercise of power of judicial review, to assess the terms of tender notification, within the limited parameters of judicial review, if such conditions are palpably and demonstrably illegal, irrational, tailor made to suit a contractor, mala-fide, against public interest and no reasonable man could have stipulated such conditions.

7. The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the employer takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschews from considering irrelevant factors and acts reasonably within the parameters of the law, Courts should keep off the same. Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289. Legality of policy and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy is the subject of judicial review. Directorate of Film Festivals vs. Gauraw Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737. On the scope of judicial review against the decisions of executive, more particularly decisions involving technical matters, in Union of India vs. J.O. Suryavamshi, (2011) 13 SCC 167 Supreme Court warned the Courts to resist the temptation to usurp the power of executive.

8. At this stage a brief recapitulation of the la