Ravi Offset Printers And Publishers PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the conditions embodied under sub-clause 1 and sub-clause 4 of Clause 9(A) of the e-tender dated 12.05.2022 were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the framers of the tender are the best authorities to incorporate terms and conditions. The Court also noted that the petitioner's counsel did not dispute that the challenge raised in the present writ petition was identical in substance to the challenge raised in a previous writ petition (Writ-C No. 13077 of 2022) concerning an e-tender dated 21.04.2022, which had already been dismissed by the Court on 11.05.2022. The Court found the present petition to be wholly misconceived. The ratio decidendi is that identical challenges to tender conditions, previously dismissed by the same court, will also be dismissed, and tender conditions are generally within the discretion of the tendering authority unless demonstrably arbitrary or unconstitutional. The Court dismissed the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Offset Printers and Publishers Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging sub-clauses 1 and 4 of clause 9(A) of an e-tender dated 12.05.2022 floated by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj, for the supply of NCERT books for the academic year 2022-23. These clauses rendered the petitioner ineligible to apply. The petitioner argued that these conditions were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. Notably, the petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition (Writ-C No. 13077 of 2022) challenging identical clauses in an e-tender dated 21.04.2022 for the same academic year. This earlier petition was dismissed by the same High Court on 11.05.2022. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that the offending provisions and the originating facts were the same, differing only in the date of the e-tender.

Key Issues

1. Whether sub-clauses 1 and 4 of clause 9(A) of the e-tender dated 12.05.2022 are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, rendering the petitioner ineligible to participate in the tender process? Petitioner's Arguments: - The impugned clauses are arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal, violating Article 19 of the Constitution. - Past disputes regarding royalty and GST payments do not disqualify the petitioner from participating in tenders, as this infringes upon their fundamental right to trade. - The zone of consideration should not be compartmentalized to exclude potential bidders, especially when the screening stage is subsequent. - The absence of quantified amounts for the disputed royalty and GST payments means these cannot be considered as valid grounds for exclusion. - The petitioner relied on *Monark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commercial Ullas Nagar Municipality & Ors.* to argue that the Court can interfere with government policy in tenders if it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Respondent's Arguments: - The respondent did not file a separate written submission, but their counsel argued that the conditions were not arbitrary or illegal and were in consonance with Article 19. - The Court found that the definition of 'dispute' implies a disagreement, and a serious dispute and demand existed regarding unpaid royalty and GST.