Vinishma Technologies PVT. LTD vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the impugned tender conditions were neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Association of Registration Plates (supra), the Court found that the eligibility criteria were directly related to the legitimate objective of ensuring the technical competence, financial strength, operational capacity, and long-term reliability of the successful bidder. The Court noted that such conditions are prevalent in other states and that the Petitioner itself had participated in similar tenders elsewhere. The Court reasoned that the magnitude of the work, the need for continuity of supply, and the requirement for a vast operational network and sophisticated technology justified stringent qualifying conditions to safeguard public interest and ensure effective implementation. The Court dismissed both writ petitions at the admission stage.

Facts

The Petitioner, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions challenging certain eligibility criteria in tenders issued by Respondent No. 2, Samagra Shiksha, Chhattisgarh, for the procurement of sports material kits. The challenged conditions included a past performance requirement of ₹6.00 crores in supplies to Chhattisgarh government agencies in the last three financial years, mandatory Chhattisgarh GST registration and five years of operational presence in the state, advance submission of product samples within 3 days, and specific ISO and CDSCO certifications for weighing scales. The Petitioner argued these conditions were illegal, arbitrary, anti-competitive, and violative of transparency and equal opportunity. The tenders were for a total value of ₹15,24,70,000/- and ₹11,49,25,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the eligibility criterion requiring bidders to have past performance of sports goods of at least ₹6.00 crores (cumulative) to any state government agencies of Chhattisgarh in the last 3 financial years is arbitrary and anti-competitive, violating principles of transparency and equal opportunity in public procurement? The Petitioner contended this condition artificially restricts competition and excludes competent suppliers from outside the State, fostering cartelisation. The Respondents argued such conditions are necessary to ensure technically and financially competent bidders for large-scale projects. 2. Whether the requirement for legal entities to possess a valid Chhattisgarh GST Certificate and have been operational for at least 5 years in Chhattisgarh is contrary to the unified nationwide GST regime and anti-competitive? The Petitioner argued this contradicts the objective of GST as a unified tax regime and creates inter-state trade barriers. The Respondents contended it ensures local presence and accountability. 3. Whether the mandatory advance submission of product samples within 3 days by technically qualified bidders is contrary to CVC guidelines and GeM Bid Document, promoting corruption and bias? The Petitioner argued this practice is discouraged by CVC guidelines and GeM policies, which suggest samples are sought post-award. The Respondents argued it is a necessary step for quality assurance. 4. Whether the ISO 9001 & 13485 certification and CDSCO registration requirement for weighing scale OEMs is arbitrary and discriminatory, as the weighing scale is a general use item and not a medical device? The Petitioner contended this requirement is unnecessary and discriminatory. The Respondents argued it ensures the quality and safety of components.