Judicial review of tender conditions is limited to examining the legality of the decision-making process. Courts will not interfere with technical and financial eligibility criteria unless they are found to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, provided they remain within the bounds of administrative discretion and guidelines.

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

25/03/2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner–Company, namely Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the tender conditions incorporated by the respondents in the procurement process initiated for empanelment of placement agencies for supply of manpower. The primary challenge of the petitioner is directed against the prescription of a minimum average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore for the preceding three financial years, as stipulated in Clause 3.5 of the Additional Terms and Conditions and the corresponding clauses in the GeM Bid Documents bearing Bid Nos. GEM/2026/B/7170291 dated 30.01.2026 and GEM/2026/B/7263566 dated 19.02.2026.

It is contended that the impugned condition is ex facie arbitrary, disproportionate and lacking any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, particularly in view of the admitted position that the tender itself is structured as a multi-agency empanelment model wherein the total work is to be distributed amongst eight selected agencies, thereby reducing the actual per-agency annual work allocation to approximately ₹12–13 Crore. The petitioner has further assailed the turnover-linked evaluation mechanism, the reduction of Performance Bank Guarantee to 5%, and the alleged procedural infirmity arising from non-enabling of the order-splitting functionality on the GeM portal, as being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and has accordingly prayed for issuance of appropriate writ(s) for quashment of the impugned conditions and for consequential directions to the respondents to rationalize the tender framework.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

“In view of the facts and grounds stated hereinabove, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside Clause 3.5 of the Additional Terms and Conditions (Annexure P/1-B), along with the corresponding financial eligibility condition incorporated in the initial GeM Bid Document (Annexure P/1-A) and the finalized GeM Bid Document (Annexure P/1-C), to the extent the same mandates an average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore for participation in the impugned tender process;

(ii) issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the turnover-linked component of the scoring/evaluation matrix in the impugned tender, to the extent it accords escalating marks on the basis of turnover slabs in a manner disproportionate to the actual per-agency work allocation contemplated under the tender;

(iii) issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the condition contained in the GeM Bid Document (Annexure P/1-C) that fixes the ePBG at 5.00%, and direct the Respondents to restore the standard bank guarantee requirement in the interest of the public exchequer;

(iv) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to rectify the procedural defect arising from non-activation of the Order Splitting functionality on the GeM portal, and to restructure the tender accordingly by either enabling order by re-floating the tender in a t