Vinishma Technologies PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging four eligibility criteria stipulated in a tender (Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6473083) issued by Respondent No. 2, the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh. These criteria included past performance in sports goods, operational duration and GST certificate validity in Chhattisgarh, submission of product samples within three days, and specific certifications for weighing scale OEMs. The petitioner argued that these conditions were arbitrary and unreasonable. The respondents contended that the conditions were necessary to ensure the selection of competent bidders for a significant public project. The Court noted that an identical matter, WPC No. 4263 of 2025, had been dismissed by the same bench on August 11, 2025.

Held

The Court held that the eligibility criteria stipulated in the tender were neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Association of Registration Plates (supra), the Court found that the conditions 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 the Supreme Court had upheld the authority of the State to insist upon eligibility criteria designed to ensure that only technically competent and financially sound entities undertake large-scale and sensitive public projects. The Court also observed that the respondents had demonstrated that such conditions were not unique to Chhattisgarh and were prevalent in other states, negating the argument of discrimination or unreasonableness. The Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the eligibility criteria stipulated in the tender document, specifically concerning past performance, operational duration, GST certificate validity, sample submission, and OEM certifications, are arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the State, as the implementing authority, has the power to prescribe such eligibility conditions to ensure the selection of technically competent and financially sound bidders for a large-scale public project. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned conditions were arbitrary and unreasonable, potentially hindering fair competition. They sought to quash these criteria. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the conditions were necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the scheme by selecting competent and reliable bidders. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Registration Plates (supra) to justify stringent eligibility criteria for large public projects. The respondents also pointed out that similar conditions were prevalent in other states where the petitioner had successfully participated.