Vinishma Technologies vs. Directorate Women Empowerment And Child Development Department

Facts

The petitioner, Vinishma Technologies, filed a writ petition challenging certain conditions in a bid document issued by the Directorate of Women Empowerment and Child Development, Uttarakhand, for the supply of Educational School Kits. The tender notice was dated 18.12.2025. The petitioner sought to quash specific clauses of the additional terms and conditions, including those requiring an affidavit stating the bidder is not blacklisted or involved in litigation, a test report from a Government Laboratory certifying materials as Food Grade, Non-Toxic, and Non-Hazardous, submission of sealed samples, and a 'no dues certificate' from the GST Authority, which was added via a corrigendum dated 29.12.2025. The petitioner contended these conditions were arbitrary and restricted competition.

Held

The Court held that the terms and conditions of a tender document are generally not open to judicial scrutiny as they fall within the realm of contract. The government has considerable latitude in setting these terms, and courts should only interfere if the decision-making process is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or actuated by bias. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned conditions. Regarding the affidavit on litigation, the Court stated that employers are entitled to information about pending litigation to assess a bidder's reliability. The requirement for a test report from a Government Laboratory was deemed necessary to ensure the safety of materials for children. The condition of submitting sealed samples was considered a valid method for quality monitoring. The 'no dues certificate' from the GST Authority was also upheld as a measure to ensure compliance with tax laws. The Court noted that the petitioner had not provided the list of items for which trials are allowed as per Clause 8 of the bid document, leading to an adverse inference that trials were allowed for the educational school kit. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the impugned conditions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, and therefore, declined to interfere.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 1(Ga) and 1(Da) of the additional terms and conditions of the bid document, and condition no. 2(4) of the corrigendum, are arbitrary and lack nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the requirement for bidders to submit an affidavit stating they are not involved in any litigation with any agency/State or Centre Government is arbitrary and restricts competition. 3. Whether the condition for submitting a test report from a Government Laboratory certifying the material as Food Grade, Non-Toxic, and Non-Hazardous is arbitrary and restricts competition. 4. Whether the condition of submitting a 'no dues certificate' issued by the Jurisdictional Goods and Service Tax (GST) Authority is arbitrary or illegal. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the requirement for an affidavit regarding litigation is arbitrary and has no nexus with the tender's objective. They also contended that the test report requirement is arbitrary and restricts competition. The condition of submitting sealed samples was argued to be contrary to an Office Memorandum dated 15.10.2003 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, making the decision subjective and potentially leading to higher contract rates. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondent. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondent likely defended the tender conditions as necessary for ensuring quality, compliance, and responsible contracting.