Discretion in tender qualifications rests with the authority unless proven arbitrary; no mandatory relaxation for qualified start-ups.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 technical evaluation results of a tender process initiated by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, wherein, the petitioner was found to be not qualified. The challenge is raised mainly on the ground that the petitioner is a Start Up and being an institution registered with the Kerala Start Up Mission, the petitioner is entitled to get relaxation in the condition of experience, as far as the tenders issued by the respondents are concerned.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was disqualified as per Ext.P11, only on the ground that, the petitioner lacks necessary experience as prescribed in the tender document, even though the petitioner is having all other qualifications. According to the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P5, which is a communication issued by the Kerala Start Up Mission owned by the Government of Kerala, addressed to the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner ought to have been granted relaxation in the criteria regarding the experience.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, I find that, the challenge raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. This is particularly because, as far as Ext.P5 is concerned, it is only a communication issued by the Kerala Start Up Mission requesting the 2^nd respondent to grant relaxation in the tender conditions in respect of Start Up Units. However, since it is only on a recommendation which was so far not acted upon by the 2^nd respondent, petitioner cannot claim it as of right.

4. Besides, no other order of statutory provision was brought to the notice of this Court, that requires the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to provide relaxation to the Start Up unit as a mandatory measure. Under normal circumstances, the power to prescribe qualification for the tenderer is the prerogative of the institution which is inviting tenders and unless any arbitrariness or unreasonableness are shown, no interference can be made. In this case, the mere fact that, experience was included as one of the criteria in the tender notification irrespective of the nature of participants, by itself cannot be a reason for the interference, as it cannot be treated as unreasonable or arbitrary, so as to warrant interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-