Gyandeep Products Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Ankit Modi vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary

Held

The Court held that laying down tender terms and conditions is within the employer's domain, and courts exercising judicial review are not expected to substitute their judgment unless the conditions are patently arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court noted that the respondents had addressed the petitioner's grievances through a committee's decision and a subsequent corrigendum. Specifically, the corrigendum included Flexographic Printing technology alongside Web Offset technology, addressing the petitioner's primary concern about the printing technology. The Court found no arbitrariness in incorporating both technologies, stating it would increase bidders and help secure better rates. Regarding the eligibility criteria for past experience, the Court found it neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and believed it had a reasonable nexus to attract more bidders for competitive pricing. The Court also noted that the petitioner was ineligible based on their own submissions. Given that the technical evaluation of bids had commenced and no grounds for interference were found, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Facts

The petitioners, Gyandeep Products Private Limited and Goyal Paper Udyog, approached the Jharkhand High Court challenging a tender notice (Bid No. JEPC/MRE/33/207/2021-22/719) issued by the Jharkhand Education Project Council (JEPC) for printing and supply of notebooks. The petitioners were disqualified due to certain terms and conditions. They sought directions to delete the mandatory requirement of Web Offset Technology, issue a corrigendum for the tender timeline, and stay the tender process. A key grievance was that the eligibility criteria regarding past contract value and the mandatory Web Offset Technology were unreasonable, not economical, and potentially led to a loss to the State Exchequer, denying a level playing field. They also argued that the eligibility criteria contravened the Jharkhand Procurement Policy regarding MSMEs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the mandatory requirement of Web Offset Technology for printing notebooks in the tender notice is arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and whether it leads to an uneconomical procurement process? 2. Whether the eligibility criteria concerning past contract value for manufacturing/printing textbooks/notebooks contravenes the Jharkhand Procurement Policy concerning MSMEs? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the mandatory Web Offset Technology is not economical or feasible, citing the migration of international companies to Flexographic Printing for notebooks due to cost. They argued that this condition is an unreasonable restriction on trade and business, potentially causing loss to the State Exchequer and denying a level playing field. They also pointed out that other states like Assam and West Bengal do not specify printing technology. Furthermore, they argued that the eligibility criteria for past experience contravenes the Jharkhand Procurement Policy which allows waiver for MSMEs. Respondents' arguments: The respondents (State and JEPC) submitted that a committee examined the suggestions from prospective bidders. They highlighted that a corrigendum was issued on 25.07.2022, which included Flexographic Printing machines along with Web Offset machines, thereby increasing the number of bidders and supporting the selection of a bidder with a better rate. They also stated that the eligibility criteria were reduced and that the rate of the notebook was fixed by the Cabinet, requiring Cabinet approval for changes. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Silppi Constructions Contractors, and Uflex Limited to support their contention that courts should not interfere in tender conditions unless patently arbitrary.