Introduction
In a decision that underscores the limits of judicial review in economic policy and public procurement, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the tender eligibility criteria for textbook printing and distribution. The case, Vikram Book Links Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, centered on the government’s revision of the minimum turnover requirement from ₹5 crores to ₹10 crores per annum, which the petitioner claimed was arbitrary and exclusionary. The judgment affirms the state’s autonomy in setting procurement standards unless malice, arbitrariness, or irrationality is proven.
1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The petitioner, Vikram Book Links Pvt. Ltd., a supplier of school textbooks in Andhra Pradesh, challenged the tender notification issued on 18 February 2025 (Rc. No. 109/T2/2025). This notification invited bids for printing and distributing textbooks for students in private schools for academic years 2025–26 and 2026–27.
Key grievances:
- The annual turnover requirement was doubled from ₹5 crores (in previous years) to ₹10 crores for the last three financial years.
No pre-bid meeting was held, allegedly violating principles of natural justice. - Corrigenda issued on 20 and 21 February 2025 modified the criteria further.
The petitioner sought to:
- Quash the tender as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21.
- Direct the conduct of a pre-bid meeting.
- Allow revised bids post-consultation.
The State defended the revised conditions as necessary to ensure efficient supply and cited previous defaults by vendors. The High Court heard both sides and rendered its judgment on 6 May 2025.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
- Whether the increase in turnover threshold from ₹5 crores to ₹10 crores per annum was arbitrary and discriminatory.
- Whether the absence of a pre-bid meeting violated the principles of natural justice and transparency in public procurement.
iii. Whether the court can interfere with tender conditions based on past policies or economic feasibility.
3. Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners:
- The enhanced turnover requirement was designed to exclude smaller, NSIC-registered publishers.
- The change lacked rational basis, especially since paper prices had dropped and previous suppliers had not defaulted.
- Highlighted a lack of pre-bid consultation despite earlier correspondence with the Education Department.
- Compared the 2025 tender conditions with past Andhra Pradesh and Telangana tenders to show inconsistency.
- Alleged favoritism toward M/s Vyjayanti Printers (though not impleaded).
Respondents (State):
- Argued that threshold revision was informed by prior procurement experience and aimed to avoid royalty defaults.
- Out of 13 bidders, 8 qualified technically, showing broad participation.
- All bidders were NSIC-registered, refuting claims of micro-industry exclusion.
- Cited several Supreme Court precedents emphasizing judicial restraint in reviewing tender terms, especially technical ones.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Autonomy of Tendering Authority
The Court reiterated that judicial interference in tender terms is limited unless mala fide, arbitrariness, or irrationality is shown. Citing Galaxy Transport Agencies, Tata Cellular, and Afcons Infrastructure, the Court emphasized:
- The authority framing the tender is best positioned to assess requirements.
- Courts should not second-guess technical or financial eligibility unless a policy is manifestly arbitrary.
On Turnover Thresholds
The Court found the ₹10 crore turnover requirement reasonable:
- It was fixed based on administrative experience.
- The condition was relaxed to allow turnover in any 2 of the last 5 years.
- 8 of 13 bidders qualified, disproving allegations of discriminatory exclusion.
The petitioner’s reliance on past tender conditions was held irrelevant. Each tender is independent, and a bidder cannot dictate the employer’s terms.
On Paper Price Reduction Argument
The Court declined to give weight to the petitioner’s letter citing market price changes in paper. The state was presumed to have access to market data and not bound by individual suggestions.
On Absence of Pre-bid Meeting
The Court found no legal mandate for holding a pre-bid meeting, particularly when sufficient public participation existed and no procedural mala fides were shown.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding:
- The turnover criterion was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
- No mala fides or procedural unfairness were proved.
- Judicial review does not extend to re-writing tender terms to suit individual bidders.
The judgment reinforces settled jurisprudence: while transparency and fairness in public tenders are essential, administrative discretion in framing tender terms is not lightly disturbed.
FAQs:
1. Can a government change eligibility criteria in tenders every year?
Yes. Public authorities can modify eligibility terms in each tender depending on their operational requirements. Courts generally do not interfere unless changes are arbitrary or mala fide.
2. Is a pre-bid meeting mandatory in public tenders?
No. While desirable for clarity and transparency, there is no absolute legal requirement for pre-bid meetings unless specifically provided in the tender rules or statutes.
3. Can a bidder challenge increased turnover requirements in a tender?
A bidder may challenge them, but courts usually uphold such conditions if they are uniformly applied, have rational basis, and promote effective contract execution.
4. Does judicial review apply to technical bid criteria?
Yes, but with restraint. Courts do not question the technical wisdom of procurement authorities unless the criteria are irrational, discriminatory, or intended to favor particular bidders.
5. Are past tender conditions binding in future tenders?
No. Each tender stands independently. Authorities may revise terms based on market conditions, past experiences, or policy shifts, provided the decision is fair and non-discriminatory.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.
[ad_1]
Source link