The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition challenging tender conditions, reaffirming that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is extremely limited. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the terms of the tender or the commercial wisdom of the employer but confines itself to examining the decision-making process.
The primary legal issue was whether the Court could interfere with tender conditions prescribing high turnover and past performance criteria, which the petitioner claimed excluded Start-ups. The Court ruled that interference is warranted only where mala fides, arbitrariness, bias, or perversity is pleaded and established. In the absence of any infirmity in the decision-making process, the tender conditions and policy decisions of the procuring authority are not amenable to judicial interference.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Singhaniya Furniture Manufacturing Business Pvt. Ltd., a recognized Start-up, challenged a tender notice issued by the Department of School Education for furniture supply. The tender required a minimum average annual turnover of ₹780 lakh and 80% past performance of the total bid quantity. The petitioner argued that these conditions violated the “Start-up India” initiative and the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, which provide for relaxations.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner argued that the denial of relaxations was arbitrary and created an artificial monopoly. They contended that the conditions were “tailor-made” to favor specific bidders and violated the doctrine of a level playing field.
Respondents’ Submissions: The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that the tender was floated through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal under specific rules. They submitted that the high turnover requirement was a policy decision to ensure that only capable industries participated, given the substantial tender value of ₹780 lakhs.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court’s analysis centered on the principles governing judicial intervention in government contracts. The Bench observed:
“Scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is extremely limited. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the terms of the tender or the commercial wisdom of the employer, but confines itself to examining the decision-making process.”
The Court further noted that the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from terms or set benchmarks provided they apply to all bidders. In this case, the condition regarding past performance was uniform for all.
“Interference is warranted only where mala fides, arbitrariness, bias or perversity is pleaded and established. In absence of any infirmity in the decision-making process, tender conditions and policy decisions of the procuring authority are not amenable to judicial interference.”
Decision
Finding that the petitioner failed to establish any mala fides or arbitrariness in the decision-making process, the Court declined to interfere with the commercial wisdom of the authorities.
“In view of the aforesaid discussion and applying the settled principles governing judicial interference in contractual and tender matters, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The writ petition was dismissed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Singhaniya Furniture Manufacturing Business Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
- Case No.: WPC No. 382 of 2026
- Coram: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B.P. Sharma
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General
