Tender conditions must promote fairness and competition; courts will not interfere unless unreasonableness or arbitrariness is evident.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

th

ON THE 24 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 38198 of 2025 MOHAMMAD HAROON Versus MADHYA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.

Appearance:

Shri Amit Dave - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice Petitioner impugns the tender dated 03.09.2025 on the ground that certain conditions have been imposed, which are unreasonable and unworkable.

2. Learned counsel submits that the tender is for transportation as well as unloading and stacking of food grains. He submits that though separate bids are sought for transportation as well as unloading and stacking, however, a caveat has been put in the tender that it is not necessary that the person, who has given the contract for transportation, would also be selected for unloading and stacking and reserved the right to allot the contract to someone else.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions are Signature Not Verified unworkable and are likely to cause several disputes in the future as the work may be awarded to two different entities.

4. We note that the petitioner itself has stated that the tender conditions are identical to the tender conditions imposed by the Food Corporation of India in its tenders.

5. Learned counsel concedes that to his knowledge there has not been any dispute with regard to tender conditions imposed by Food Corporation of India as also by allotment of work of transportation as well unloading and stacking to different entities by Food Corporation of India.

6. It is settled position of law that the tender inviting authority is the judge of the tender conditions and Courts would not substitute its view simply on the ground that it appears to the Courts that the tender condition is unreasonable. The Courts would interfere only if tender conditions are imposed in a manner that it ousts competition. Identical tender conditions have been imposed and in our view, the same are not unreasonable. The tender itself mentions that the rate of transportation and rate of unloading and stacking has to be separately quoted by the bidders. It is open to the tender inviting authority to award a composite contract to an entity or award the contract for transportation and unloading and stacking to separate entities in the interest of the exchequer. Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Michigun Rubber (I) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and others 2012 (8) SCC 216 has held as under :-

"23) From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:

(a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and Signature Not Verified substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;

(b) fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very limited;

(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is not warranted;

(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the con