Denish Jasubhai Sankhala vs Union Of India Thru The Secretary Ministry Of Petyroleum And Natrual Gas,

CNR No : HCBM020161592026

2026:BHC-OS:18762-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 16159 OF 2026
1. Denish Jasubhai Sankhala ]
Age: About 43 years, Occ: Business ]
Proprietor, Fusion Digital Paiki 152-3, ]
Plot No.-362, Panchratna Industrial Estate, ]
At Changodar, Sanand, Ahmedabad, ]
Gujarat, 382213 ]
2. Gulshan Kumar ]
Age : About 60 years, Occ: Business ]
Proprietor, Shubham Engineering, ]
rd
3 Floor, 92/9, Block -2, Landmark ]
Behind Sambi Furniture, WHS Kirti ]
Nagar, New Delhi-110015. ] ….Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India ]
Through the Secretary, Ministry of ]
Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri ]
Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, ]
New Delhi – 10001 ]
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited ]
(IOCL), Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9. ]
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), ]
Mumbai – 400 051 ]
Through its Chairman & Managing Director ]
3. The Deputy General Manager (M&C), ]
HO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ]
(Marketing Division), Head Office: ]
Contract Cell Department, Small Wing, ]
th
6 Floor, Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, ]
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East,) ]
Mumbai – 400051 ] ….Respondents
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 27395 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 16159 OF 2026
CBM Industry Pvt. Ltd. ] ….Applicant
1/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

In the matter between
Denish Jasubhai Sankhala and Anr. ] …..Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, ]
Through Ministry of Petroleum and ]
Natural Gas and Ors. ] ….. Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 28202 OF 2026
Retail Impact Private Limited ]
CIN :U7414ODL2012PTC236389 ]
Having its registered office at: A-1/119-120, ]
Kavi Nagar Industrial Area, Sector-17, ]
Glaziabad-201001, UP Through its ]
Authorized Representative ] ….Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India ]
Through the Secretary, Ministry of ]
Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri ]
Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, ]
New Delhi – 100 0001 ]
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) ]
Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 ]
Through its Chairman & Managing Director ]
3. The Deputy General Manager (M&C), ]
HO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ]
(Marketing Division), Head Office: ]
Contract Cell Department, Small Wing, ]
th
6 Floor, Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, ]
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East,) ]
Mumbai – 400051 ] ….Respondents
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, i/by
Shavez Mukri, Advocates for the Petitioner in WP(L)/16159/2026.
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary with Mr. Aaryan Aachra, i/by Ketan Dhavle,
Advocates for the Petitioner in WP(L)/28202/2026.
2/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

Mr. D.N. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in WP(L)/16159/2026.

Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sunil Gangan, Mr. Swapnil
Shikhare, Mr. Manav Chetwani, Advocates, i/by RMG Law
Associates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in WP(L)/16159/2026 and
WP(L)/28202/2026.
Mr. Varun Singh with Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Ms. Parijat, Ms. Urvashi
Chauhan and Mr. Rachit Rawat, Advocates for the Intervener.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 19 August, 2026.
st
PRONOUNCED ON: 21 August, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per Gautam A. Ankhad, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the parties, the Petitions are heard finally.
2. The Petitioners, in both Writ Petitions, impugn Condition
Nos. 22.3(vi), (ix), (x)(c) and (x)(e) of the Tender floated by the
Respondents for the supply, fabrication, transportation, installation and
commissioning of Retail Visual Identity (“ RVI ”) elements, including
canopies/building fascias, Indian Oil logo/Indian Oil lettering, signages,
allied structures, at Indian Oil locations across 16 State Offices in India.
Since the Petitioners have advanced similar arguments, they are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
3/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

3. At the outset, Dr. Sathe, learned senior advocate appearing

for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, submits that Writ Petition (L) No. 16159
of 2026 filed by Denish Jasubhai Sankhala and Gulshan Kumar, is not
maintainable. He submits that the Petitioners have neither participated in
the Tender nor averred in the Petition that they satisfy all the eligibility
criteria prescribed under the Tender. Hence, the Petition ought to be
dismissed without adjudicating the same on its merits.
4. We do not intend to non-suit the Petitioners on this ground,
as we find that the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 28202 of 2026,
namely, Retail Impact Private Limited, has participated in the Tender
and submitted its bid, which is presently under consideration by the
Respondents. Hence, we are proceeding to consider the challenge to the
impugned conditions on a demurrer that the Petitioners in Writ Petition
(L) No. 16159 of 2026 possess the requisite qualifications to participate
in the Tender.
Submissions of the Petitioners
5. Mr. Kadam, learned senior advocate appearing for the
Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 16159 of 2026, submits that
Respondent No. 2 has floated the Tender for an estimated project value
th
of Rs.11,98,82,61,101/-. On 26 March, 2026, the Petitioners submitted
a representation to Respondent No. 2 objecting to the impugned clauses.
4/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

th
The objections were reiterated at the pre-bid meeting held on 8 April,

th
2026. On 15 April, 2026, Respondent No.2 responded by simply stating
that the Tender conditions would prevail. The Petitioners thereafter
st
submitted a further representation on 1 May, 2026 reiterating their
objections to the impugned clauses of the Tender. The Petition was
th
ultimately filed on 4 May, 2026, i.e. prior to the last date for submission
th
of bids, which was 6 May, 2026. Mr. Kadam submits this was done as
the Tender contains a specific stipulation that a bidder, having submitted
its bid, cannot thereafter challenge the Tender conditions. He submits
that the law laid down in National High Speed Rail Corporation
1
,
Limited vs. Montecarlo Limited Watergrace Products Through its
Proprietor Chetan Prtihviraj Bora vs. State of Maharashtra Through
2
the Secretary Urban Development Department , and Geocon
3
Consultancy Pune vs. State of Maharashtra permits a challenge to the
Tender conditions by a prospective bidder before participating in the
Tender. Hence, the present petition is maintainable.
6. On merits, Mr. Kadam contends that the Tender prescribes a
lower financial capacity as an eligibility criterion to ensure widest
participation, which is:
1 (2022) 6 SCC 401
2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2511
3 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2693
5/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

(i) having completed a single Similar Work order of a

value of Rs.37.50 lakhs or above during any of the
preceding seven years; and
(ii) the bidder must have an annual turnover of at least
Rs.150 lakhs during any of the three preceding
financial years, namely, 2022-23, 2023-24 and
2024-25.
The financial bid thereafter requires the bidder to quote within a price
band of (-) 20% to (+) 5% of the respective line items of the BOQ.
Where all bidders quote (-) 20%, which is likely to happen in this
Tender, the ranking is determined on the basis of the higher annual
turnover in any of the preceding three years as the sole criterion to
determine the ascending order amongst bidders quoting the same L1 rate.
The combination of price range of (-) 20% to (+5) % which restricts the
pricing coupled with the bidder with the largest Turnover succeeding in
the event of a tie-breaker operates to the disadvantage of bidders,
particularly MSME bidders, who have comparatively lower overall
turnover. Thus, this mechanism is arbitrary and the MSME bidders are
discriminated on the basis of their overall annual turnover. The highest
turnover criterion for a tie-breaker has no rational nexus to achieve the
object of procuring RVI works from technically capable vendors.
6/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

7. It is further submitted that the total Turnover is to be as per

the audited financial statements of the bidder. It includes the turnover of
an entity from all sources including income derived from activities
wholly unrelated to RVI works, such as trading in commodities, real
estate or unrelated manufacturing activities. Turnover from other sources
cannot be regarded as a measure of a bidder's capability to execute RVI
works. This also creates an unfair advantage in favour of entities having
a larger overall turnover, irrespective of their experience or capability in
executing RVI works. A more rational and proportionate criterion would
be Turnover derived from RVI-related works, coupled with the number
of similar works successfully executed by the bidder. Reliance is placed
on the judgment in Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
4
Chhattisgarh to submit that conditions that restrict competition cannot
be sustained and accordingly, Condition Nos. 22.3(vi), (ix), (x)(c) and
(x)(e) of the Tender ought to be quashed and set aside.
8. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 28202 of 2026, adopts the submissions
advanced by Mr. Kadam. In addition, he submits that the Petitioners
have also challenged Condition no. 21(1) of the Tender, which prescribes
that the value of a single work order for Similar Work should be
Rs. 37.50 lakhs or above. This condition is contrary to the Office
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119
7/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

th
Memorandum dated 17 December, 2002 issued by the Central Vigilance

Commission. Clause 5(ii) of the CVC Circular provides that, where a
single completed work order is prescribed, “one similar completed
works costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated
cost” ought to be used as a guideline. Considering the value of works
involved, the Tender prescribes a substantially lower threshold of
Rs. 37.50 lakhs and violates the requirement of having 80% of the
estimated cost as the base price. For instance, a single bidder may
ultimately be awarded works aggregating to approximately Rs. 100
crores, while the experience requirement remains confined to a Similar
Work of only Rs. 37.5 lakhs in the past seven years.
9. Mr. Chaudhary further submits that prescribing turnover as
the sole tie-breaking criterion predetermines the outcome in the event of
a tie, as the bidder having the highest turnover would prevail irrespective
of its experience, capability or competitiveness in executing RVI works.
He, therefore, submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed and the
impugned conditions ought to be quashed and set aside.
Submissions of the Respondents
10. Dr. Sathe, learned senior advocate appearing for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, reiterates that Writ Petition (L) No. 16159 of
2026 is not maintainable. Without prejudice to objection, on merits, he
8/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

submits that the Tender conditions are not tailor made to favour any

particular bidder. The Petitioners have proceeded on an erroneous
understanding of the Tender conditions and its scope of the work.
th
Dr. Sathe relies upon the affidavits dated 11 August, 2026 and
th
18 August, 2026 filed by the Respondents in support of the Tender
structure, evaluation and allocation mechanism. In their additional
th
affidavit dated 18 August, 2026, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stated as
follows:
“6. I say that as per clause 17 of the tender, the entire work of
RVI has been divided into 16 state offices (SOs) across
the country. The quantity of each SO comprising of state
office is detailed in clause 17 of the tender. As per the
said chart, there are total 4,730 number of RO’s, which
are divided into 16 States. Each State has a particular
allocation of RO’s. As per the tender, it is a consolidated
tender invited for 16 number of State offices.
7. I say that as per clause 22.3, the bids will be evaluated on
techno commercial basis for each 16 SOs separately. The
evaluation of the bid will be done in order to arrive at the
lowest bidders to be listed in their ascending order i.e.
L1, L2, L3 & L4 position for each State separately. As per
clause 22.3 of the NIT, the techno commercial evaluation
of the bidders in order to establish the L1 rates and merit
list shall be conducted and in case there is a tie in
establishing L1 rate as well as other than L1 rates, the
turnover will be the criteria for establishing the merit list.
8. The process of evaluation of bids is summarized in brief
as under:
The tender will be evaluated in a two-bid system
(Technical + Price Bid) and on a percentage-rate basis.
I) Technical Evaluation
PQC
9/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

II) Opening of Price Bids

Only bidders meeting all pre-qualification criteria
and other conditions will have their price bids
opened.
III) Determination of L-1
a) L-1 (lowest bidder) will be determined
separately for each of the 16 State Offices.
b) A separate merit list (L-1, L-2, L-3 etc.) will be
prepared for every SO based on ascending
order of quoted rates.
IV) Empanelment Process
a) The finalized L-1 rate (with or without
negotiation) for a State Office will be offered to
all technically qualified bidders for that SO.
b) Bidders who agree to match the finalized L-1
rate will be empanelled, subject to:
i) Their position in the merit list.
ii) The number of contractors required for that
SO.
V) Tie-Breaking Rules
A. Tie at L-1 with Rate = (-)20%
a) No discount bidding or negotiation.
b) Bidder having the highest annual turnover
(among the last three years submitted) gets
higher rank.
B. Tie at L-1 with any other Rate
a) All tied L-1 bidders will submit a further
discount bid in sealed envelopes.
b) Revised bids will be opened on a specified
date.
c) If tie still persists:
i) Higher turnover bidder gets preference.
ii) If turnover is also identical: The bidder
who submitted the bid earlier on the
portal (date and time) gets preference.
10/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

C. Tie at L-2, L-3 etc.

Higher annual turnover will be used to
determine ranking.
VI) Waitlist Provision
a) Bidders who accept the L-1 rate but cannot be
empanelled due to lower ranking may be placed
on a waitlist.
b) Waitlisted parties may be empanelled later if:
i) An empanelled contractor withdraws, or
ii) Empanelled contractor is removed due to
poor performance, or
iii) Additional vendors are needed during the
contract period.
VII) Work Allocation
Initially, a,, empanelled contractors for a State
Office will be awarded equal quantum of work (as
defined in Para 17, Column F of the NIT).
9. As per the evaluation, the bidders will be empanelled as
L1, L2, L3 & L4 etc. for respective SO as per the
requirement mentioned in Column E of para 17 of the
NIT. In all, for 16 State offices, 109 contracts will be
executed with empanelled contractors. All empanelled
contractors for respective SOs shall be initially awarded
contract for equal quantum of works based on Column F
of para 17 of the NIT. Each empanelled contractors will
be awarded contract in the tentative value of rate
contract as mentioned in Column F of para 17 of the NIT.
In any event, it is reiterated one bidder will get only one
contract in one SO.
10. Thus the tender notice is in reality for works of 16 SOs
where 109 bidders are to be selected. Bidders who submit
the bids of each SO are separately evaluated at SO level
by the Company, the price bids of technically qualified
bidder. In terms of procedure in Clause 22.3, the seniority
of bidders as per L1, L2, L3 etc. is decided and in case
tie, the turnover is considered. Thus, the empanelled
bidders decided as per the procedure are given the work
order depending upon the number of vendors required as
enumerated in Clause 17. In each SO, any bidder will get
only one order and the other orders are given to the other
bidders as per the empanelment done.
11/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

11. The procedure of selection of RVI contractors as
prescribed in the present tender is similar in methodology
to the earlier RVI tender, i.e., HCC/ENGG-28/PT-
61/2022-23 (validity: 22.12.2024) in which, 85 contracts
were awarded. The said tender was successfully
completed. Similarly, two (2) more tenders for monolith
and unipole having similar methodology [i.e., Tender
Numbers HCC/ENGG-34/PT-73/2022-23 (validity:
15.01.2025) and HCC/ENGG-37/PT-82/2022-23
(validity: 28.02.2025) respectively] have also been
successfully completed.”
11. Based on the above affidavit, Dr. Sathe submits that the
Tender is an all-India Tender for rate contract covering 16 State Offices,
with separate evaluation and allocation of work for each State Office.
The prescribed pre-qualification criteria require bidders to demonstrate
requisite experience, financial capacity, manufacturing facilities and
machinery. Only bidders satisfying these criteria are permitted to have
their price bids considered. The turnover criterion challenged by the
Petitioners is not an eligibility criterion by which a bidder is either
admitted to or excluded from the Tender, but operates only at the stage of
determining ranking between otherwise qualified bidders in specified
cases of a price-tie. The apprehension that the turnover criterion would
enable a bidder with a higher turnover to monopolise the Tender is
unfounded, as there will be State Office-wise evaluation and
empanelment, and a bidder cannot be awarded more than one work order
in a State Office.
12/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

12. Dr. Sathe submits that the determination of eligibility and
evaluation criteria falls within the commercial wisdom of the Tendering
Authority. Having regard to the nature, magnitude and geographical
spread of the work under this Tender, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
entitled to adopt a methodology which they consider appropriate for
their requirements. The mere fact that another or, according to the
Petitioners, a more suitable criteria could have been adopted would not
render the chosen criteria arbitrary or discriminatory. He relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Agmatel India Private
5
Limited vs. Resoursys Telecom and Others and Delhi High Court in
Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lady Hardinge Medical
6
College & Ors . for the well settled principles on limited scope of
judicial interference in tender matters.
13. Lastly, it is submitted that the same methodology has also
been successfully adopted by Respondent No.2 in earlier RVI-related
tenders. There is no reason for Respondent No.2 to now deviate from the
same. Accordingly, no ground for interference under Article 226 is made
out and that both the Petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs.
5 (2022) 5 SCC 362
6
W.P.(C) 11132/2022 & CM APPLs. 32673/2022, 32674/2022, 52385/2022,
th
52386/2022, 52387/2022, 52388/2022 decided on 13 April 2023.
13/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

Reasons and Conclusions
14. We have perused the record and have heard the learned
counsel for the parties. In our view, there is no merit in these Petitions.
15. At the outset, it is necessary to appreciate the nature and
structure of the Tender. Respondent No.2 has invited an all-India rate
contract for the supply, fabrication, transportation, installation and
commissioning of Retail Visual Identity (‘RVI’) elements at Indian Oil
retail outlets across the country. The Tender covers 16 State Offices
comprising of 28 States and 5 Union Territories, and contemplates 109
work orders for installation of 4,730 RVIs in 16 State Offices across
India. While the estimated total value of the Tender is approximately
Rs.1,198 crores, the tentative value of the rate contract to be allocated to
each vendor for each State is specifically stated at Clause 17 of the
Tender. The said clause also records the number of work orders to be
issued in each State. The Tender is, therefore, not a single contract to be
awarded to one successful bidder. It is a consolidated Tender under
which separate State Office-wise merit lists are to be prepared and the
work is thereafter distributed amongst empanelled bidders. For
convenience, the relevant Clauses of the NIT are extracted and quoted:
14/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

# PARTICULARS DETAILS
1 TENDER NO. : MnC/ENGG-23/PT-144/25-26
(E-Tender ID: 2026_MKTHO_189229_1
2 NAME OF WORK : Rate Contract for Supply, Fabrication,
Transportation, Installation and
Commissioning of RVI elements (i.e.
Canopy/Building Fascia, Indian Oil Logo/
Indian Oil Lettering/Swagat Signage on
Canopy/building fascia, Directional/Facility
Signages, Air Tower canopies etc.) at Indian Oil
Locations under 16 nos. of State Offices.
3 LOCATION OF Indian Oil Retail Outlets across the country.
WORK (Tentative details are mentioned under Para 17
of NIT
4 ESTIMATED VALUE : Rs. 11,98,82,61,101.00 (Rupees One Thousand
OF WORK One Hundred Ninety-Eight Crore Eighty-Two
Lakhs Sixty-One Thousand One Hundred One
Only). /- (Inclusive of GST considered @ 18%)
5 TYPE OF TENDER : Electronic Bid under Two Bid System
Part-1 : Technical/Commercial Bid
Part-2: Price Bid.
6 TENDER FEE : NIL, Bidders are required to download the
tender documents free of cost from IOCL e-
tender website ( https://iocletenders.nic.in
7 EARNEST MONEY : EMD shall be Rs. 75,000/- per State Office (SO)
DEPOSIT quoted…
…...
21 PRE-QUALIFYING CRITERIA:
I SIMILAR WORK CRITERIA:
Bidder shall have experience of having completed a
Similar Work order of value Rs. 37.50 lakhs or above in
any of the last 7 years upto to the last day of the month
previous to the one in which tenders is being invited.
(The completed value of above works shall be inclusive of
taxes/GST.)
“ Similar Work ” shall mean:
The supply and installation works for Monolith/
Totem/Pylon/ RVI (Retail Visual Identity) / Fascia Works
15/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

for Building or canopies etc. / Building or Column
cladding / outdoor signage works. All such works shall
primarily involve use of Aluminum Composite Material /
Panel (ACM/ACP)

Note:
i) Cumulative value of call up orders against rate
contracts shall not be considered against monetary
value for similar work. Only individual call up
value shall be considered towards value of similar
work.
ii) In case bidder opts to quote for multiple State
Offices, the requirement of similar work criteria
shall remain the same and shall not be on
cumulative basis. For e.g., even if a bidder opts to
be qualified for 3 State Offices, then the similar
work value required shall remain Rs. 37.5 lakhs or
above.
…..
21(II) ANNUAL TURNOVER CRITERIA
Annual Turnover of the bidder during any of the last three
preceding financial years i.e. 2022-23, 2023-24 & 2024-
25 shall be at least Rs. 150 Lakhs for each State Office
for which qualification is sought.
In case bidder opts to quote for multiple State Offices, the
requirement of annual turnover criteria shall be on
cumulative basis e.g., if a bidder opts to be qualified for 3
State Offices, then the minimum annual turnover
requirement shall be 3 x 150 lakhs = Rs 450 lakhs and so
on.
Bidder quoting for number Value of Turn Over for
of State Office(s) (In Lakhs)
1 150
2 300
3 450
4 600
5 750
6 900
7 1050
16/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

8 1200
9 1350
10 1500
11 1650
12 1800
13 1950
14 2100
15 2250
16 2400
21 (III) MANUFACTURING FACILITY:
A. FACTORY PREMISES:
The bidder shall possess a Factory Premises (for
works pertaining to RVI which includes
Canopy/Building fascia, cladding, signages,
spreaders etc.) of minimum covered area of
factory premises as detailed in the table
appended below. In case bidder is opting to
quote in more than one State Office, they shall
meet the minimum covered area requirement for
the respective slabs (based on the number of
State Offices quoted) as specified in the table
below:
Minimum Requirement of factory premises
# Description Unit
for quoting for multiple State Offices (SO)
Slab-V
(>12 SOs)
Slab-I Slab-II Slab-III Slab-IV
(Up to 3 SOs) (4-6 SOs) (7-9 SOs) (10-12 SOs)
A MANUFACTURING FACILITY
Minimum covered area
1 SQ Ft 7,000 10,500 14,000 17,500 21,000
of factory premises
B. AVAILABILITY OF REQUIRED MACHINERY AT
FACTORY:
Bidder shall have the following minimum machinery
/equipment at their factory as detailed in the table
appended below. In case bidder is opting to quote in more
than one State Office, they shall meet the minimum
machinery requirement for the respective slabs (based on
17/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

the number of State Offices quoted) as specified in the
table below:

Description of Minimum Requirement of factory premises
# Unit
Equipment/Machinery for quoting for multiple State Offices (SO)
Slab-I Slab-II Slab-III Slab-IV Slab-V
(Up to 3 SOs) (4-6 SOs) (7-9 SOs) (10-12 SOs) (>12 SOs)
B MINIMUM MACHINERY / EQUIPMENT AT FACTORY
CNC Router:
CNC Router with
minimum cutting range
of 8’ x 4’
OR
CNC Router with cutting
range of 5’ x 10’
No. 1 2 2 3 3
1
Roller Bending Machine
2 No. 1 1 1 1 1
(4 M Wide)
3 Vinyl Plotter (4 Feet) No. 1 1 1 2 2
Welding Machines
4 No. 2 2 2 3 3
(MIG/TIG)
5 Power Saw No. 1 1 1 2 2
6 Drilling Machines No. 1 1 1 2 2
Backlit Glass Table for
7 No. 1 1 1 2 2
Vinyl Pasting (5’ x 10’)
8 Welding Machines (Arc) No. 3 6 6 9 9
…..
22 TENDER EVALUATION CRITERIA INCLUDING
TECHNICAL & COMMERCIAL TERMS:
22.2 PRICE BID
i) This tender is consolidated tender being invited
for 16 nos. of State Offices, comprising of Price
Bid (BoQ), which consists of 16-line items (one
line item for each SO).
ii) Bidders shall quote their rate in percentage, in
price band of (-) 20% to (+) 5% mandatorily,in
the respective line items of BOQ for the SO(s)
only for which they have opted and as declared
in Annexure-2. Bidders are advised to quote in
the price bid as following:
……
18/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

22.3 TECHNO-COMMERCIAL BID EVALUATION
AND ALLOCATION OF CONTRACT:
The techno-commercial bid shall be scrutinized and
evaluated based on the qualifying parameters
mentioned in NIT and based on the uploaded
documents in e-tender portal.
i) This tender is invited under two bid system and
on percentage basis.
ii) Duly filled Annexure '2' submitted by bidder
shall be firm and final & no change in the
same shall be entertained.
iii) In case bidder quotes for the State Office(s) for
which they have not given their selection of
quote for the State Office(s) in the Annexure
'2', such quote shall not be considered as a
'Valid Offer' & bidder's quote for that
particular SO shall not be opened.
iv) The documents submitted by the bidder along
with the Technical Bid shall be evaluated
based on the pre-qualifying parameter as
mentioned under Para 21 of NIT & other
commercial parameters mentioned.
v) The price bid of only those bidders shall be
opened who are qualifying as per the
qualifying criteria mentioned under
Prequalifying criteria.
vi) As a matter of routine, price-negotiation shall
not be conducted with L-1 bidder based on
price quoted in BoQ, and tiebreaker (if any),
however, IOCL reserves the right to conduct
negotiations with L1 bidder. Price negotiation
shall not be conducted for those State
Office(s), wherever L1 rate is found at (-) 20%.
vii) The established L-1 rate (With or without
negotiations) shall be finalized for each 16 SOs
separately. Thus, SO wise merit list of the
bidders shall be prepared based on the
ascending order of bidder's quoted rate
19/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

received against the respective SO, e.g. L2
shall be ranked higher than L3, L3 shall be
ranked higher than L4 and so on.

viii) Such L-1 rates of individual state offices shall
be offered to all the technically qualified
parties for that State Office at one go, with a
provision that the bidders accepting the L-1
rate shall be empaneled for that State Office,
depending on the original position of the
bidder in the list and the requirement of parties
indicated for that State Office.
ix) In case of tie between two or more bidders at
(-) 20% for any of the SO(s), then in such case
neither discount bid shall be asked nor
negotiation shall be conducted with the L1
bidders for these SO(s). The bidder with the
higher annual turnover (worked out to two
decimal points) in any of the last three years,
as submitted against Turnover criteria of this
tender, shall be given priority in order to arrive
at the ascending order (I.e. L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4
position) among such bidders having same L1
Rate l.e. (-) 20%.
x) In case of tie between two or more bidders for
L-1 position at rate other than (-) 20% for any
of the SO(s), the following shall be done:
a) All the L-1 bidders shall be asked to submit
discount bid in terms of percentage
discount over previous quoted amount in a
sealed envelope. Above exercise shall
currently be an offline activity outside the
e-portal.
b) The sealed envelopes shall be opened on
the specified date. The bidders, while
seeking revised bids, shall be advised to
witness the opening of sealed envelopes.
c) In case there is a tie again, the bidder with
the highest turnover in any of the last
three years as submitted against turnover
criteria shall be considered as L1 bidder .
20/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

d) In an exceptional case where turnover is
also same, the bid submitted earlier in the
portal in terms of both date and time shall
be considered for award of job.

e) In case of tie at other than L-1 position (i.e.
at L-2, L-3, L-4, … etc.) for any of the SO,
the bidder with the higher annual turnover
(worked out to two decimal points) in any
of the last three years, as submitted against
Turnover criteria of this tender, shall be
given priority in order to arrive at the
ascending order (i.e. L-2, L-3, L-4 position)
of the lowest quoted bidders for that SO.
f) IOCL desires to have a panel of waitlist
parties for each State Office, apart from
individual requirement of contractors to be
empaneled for each SOs, as mentioned in
NIT. For those parties who had accepted
L1 rates but could not be empaneled due to
their position being lower in the merit list,
shall be given option for being on waitlist
and for this a consent shall be obtained
along with consent for matching of
finalized L1 rates.
The next party on the wait list can be
included in the empaneled list, in case an
empaneled party backs out/is removed from
the empanelment for lack of performance
or there is a need for additional
requirement of vendors at a later date
during the validity of the rate contract.
g) All empaneled parties for respective SOs,
shall be initially awarded contract for
equal quantum of works (As mentioned
under column 'F' under Para 17 of NIT
above).
h) The final distribution of RVI quantities
shall be done after considering the
purchase preference for Local content as
defined under Para 22.4 below. However,
in dividing the quantity of various type of
21/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

RVI, SO-wise or geographical state-wise to
bidder in Lot, if any fraction or imbalance
arises in calculation or to take care of any
practical difficulties, the decision of IOCL
will be the final and binding on all bidders.

16. A reading of the above conditions makes it amply clear that
to enable a bidder to participate, a bidder is required, i nter alia, to have:
(i) Experience of having completed a single Similar Work of a value
of Rs.37.50 lakhs or above during the preceding seven years;
(ii) An annual Turnover of at least Rs.1.50 crore for each State Office
for which qualification is sought, during any one of the preceding
three financial years. In case the bidder desires to participate in
more than one State, then 1.50 crores is multiplied by the number
of States;
(iii) Possessing the stipulated minimum size and area of the factory
premises; and
(iv) The prescribed machinery and equipment at the factory to perform
the Tender.
Considering that the total value of the Tender is Rs.1,198 crores, we do
not find that these PQC are restrictive.
22/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

17. We find that the manufacturing capacity prescribed under

Clause 21(III) is a critical aspect of the tender structure. The said
condition requires that a bidder possess a manufacturing facility as well
as specified machinery commensurate to its participation. It is graded
both in terms of the size of the factory and the minimum equipment
required progressively increases for successive slabs according to the
number of State Offices which a bidder seeks qualification. This
requirement is directly linked to the bidders’ capacity to execute the RVI
works. It is in this context that the annual turnover criterion must be
viewed. It is only after the bidder satisfies all the above criteria, that its
financial bid is considered by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The role
subsequently assigned to the annual turnover in a tie-breaker is
materially narrower.
18. The Petitioners are proceeding on the basis that all bidders
are likely to quote at the lower end of the price band, i.e, (-) 20% and
have assailed the use of annual Turnover as a tie-breaker. It is argued that
a bidder having a larger overall turnover including from other sources
would obtain an unfair advantage over an MSME bidder having a lower
turnover, even though both bidders may possess identical technical
qualifications and may have quoted the same rate. We find no merit in
this submission as the Tender does not permit a bidder with a high
23/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

turnover to qualify despite lacking the requisite technical experience or

infrastructure as stated above.
19. Even as regards the evaluation of financial bids, we find that
the Tender provides for a well structured evaluation basis. The annual
turnover of a bidder does not determine who enters the competition. It
only operates to resolve a residual tie at the last stage between otherwise
similarly placed bidders. Just to illustrate, in the North-Eastern States,
the Tender contemplates appointment of 11 vendors for works valued at
approximately Rs.1,217.78 lakhs. Thus, depending on the prices quoted,
the bidders are ranked L1 to L11 and the work is distributed amongst
them. A similar mechanism applies to the other States. Where two or
more bidders quote the same rate at a level other than (-) 20%, a further
discount bid/negotiation is invited from the tied bidders. In a case where
the bidders have quoted (-) 20%, no discount bid or negotiation is
contemplated. Only where the price-tie continues even thereafter, the
bidder having the higher annual turnover in any of the preceding three
years is given priority for determining the L1 bidder. The bidder having
the next higher turnover is correspondingly ranked L2, and so on. A
particular bidder is not awarded more than one work order in a State
Office. Even assuming that the bidder with the highest turnover submits
bids for all 16 State Offices, it can, at the highest, secure 16 work orders
24/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

out of the total 109 work orders contemplated under the Tender. The

apprehension that the impugned condition is tailor-made for bidder
having a high-turnover to monopolise the Tender is, therefore,
unfounded.
20. We are unable to accept the submission that the use of
turnover in such a limited circumstance is wholly unrelated to the
contract for supply of RVIs. It is settled law, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Directorate of Education vs. Educomp Datamatis
7
Ltd. that financial capacity is a legitimate consideration for an authority
awarding a contract of this magnitude and geographical spread. The
Tender is an all-India contract covering 16 State Offices and 109 work
orders. A bidder's overall turnover is a reasonable indicator of its
financial and operational capacity. The Tendering Authority is entitled to
take the financial capacity into account, once the qualified bidders have
quoted an identical price. Most significantly, the Respondents have
clarified that a particular bidder cannot be awarded more than one work
order in a State Office. A bidder cannot, merely by virtue of its higher
turnover and stronger financial capacity, get all 109 work orders. In our
view, the turnover criterion is not arbitrary and does not operate as a
device for excluding smaller bidders from the Tender. The Turnover
7 (2004) 4 SCC 19
25/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

criterion provides an objective method where two or more otherwise

qualified bidders have quoted/negotiated the same price. We do not find
that the criterion adopted is discriminatory or irrational or that it bears no
reasonable relationship with the object sought to be achieved.
21. We are also unable to accept the submission of
Mr. Chaudhary that the tender condition in Clause 21(I) of a bidder
having done Similar Works for Rs. 37.50 lakhs violates the CVC
th
Circular dated 17 December, 2002. The submission proceeds on the
assumption that the figure of 80% mentioned in the said Circular
constitutes a mandatory eligibility requirement. That is not so. Clause 5
begins with the words “The following points must be kept in view while
fixing the eligibility criteria...” . Clause 5 or 5(ii) of the CVC Circular
does not prescribe any formula or state that every Tendering Authority
must, irrespective of the nature of the procurement, adopt 80% of the
estimated cost as the minimum value of the single similar work. The
CVC Circular appears to be illustrative in nature.
22. In the present case, the all-India Tender of Rs.1,198 crores
prescribing value of Rs. 37.50 lakhs for similar works permits the widest
possible participation. The value of work may fluctuate depending on the
quotes in the price band of (-)20% and (+)5%. Hence, the 80% reference
26/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

in the CVC Circular cannot be applied mechanically by comparing it

with the aggregate value of all works which may potentially be awarded
under the Tender. We, therefore, find no inconsistency between the
impugned tender conditions and the CVC Office Memorandum dated
th
17 December 2002. The additional challenge contended by
Mr. Chaudhary is accordingly rejected.
23. The scope of judicial review in tender matters is extremely
limited. The Court cannot undertake a microscopic examination of the
commercial wisdom underlying every component of the tender. In the
present case, the impugned criterion has a reasonable connection with
the financial capacity of bidders and is employed only as a last-resort
mechanism for resolving a tie. The Writ Court cannot rewrite the terms
of the tender even if some other terms may appear preferable. It is settled
law that the conditions of invitation to Tender falls exclusively within the
domain of the Tendering Authority. Interference is warranted only where
the decision is mala fide, discriminatory, manifestly arbitrary, irrational,
or such that no reasonable authority acting in accordance with law could
have arrived at it. We find none of it in the present case. Dr. Sathe’s
reliance on Agmatel (supra) is well placed, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as follows:
27/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

“25. This Court referred to various decisions on the subject and
stated the legal principles as follows : (Galaxy Transport
Agencies case [Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K.
Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors, (2021) 16
SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035] , SCC paras 14-20)

“14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the
authority that authors the tender document is the best
person to understand and appreciate its requirements,
and thus, its interpretation should not be second-
guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings . In
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail
Corpn. Ltd. [Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818] , this
Court held : (SCC p. 825, para 15)
‘15. We may add that the owner or the employer of
a project, having authored the tender
documents, is the best person to understand
and appreciate its requirements and interpret
its documents. The constitutional courts must
defer to this understanding and appreciation
of the tender documents, unless there is mala
fide or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the terms
of the tender conditions. It is possible that the
owner or employer of a project may give an
interpretation to the tender documents that is
not acceptable to the constitutional courts but
that by itself is not a reason for interfering with
the interpretation given. ’
15. In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR
Dev Prabha [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev
Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759] , under the heading
“Deference to authority's interpretation”, this Court
stated : (SCC p. 776, paras 50-52)
‘50. Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with
another fundamental problem. It is obvious
that Respondent 1 seeks to only enforce
terms of NIT. Inherent in such exercise is
interpretation of contractual terms. However,
it must be noted that judicial interpretation
of contracts in the sphere of commerce
28/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

stands on a distinct footing than while
interpreting statutes.

51. In the present facts, it is clear that BCCL and
C1-India have laid recourse to clauses of
NIT, whether it be to justify condonation of
delay of Respondent 6 in submitting
performance bank guarantees or their
decision to resume auction on grounds of
technical failure. BCCL having authored
these documents, is better placed to
appreciate their requirements and interpret
them. [Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818]
52. The High Court ought to have deferred to
this understanding, unless it was patently
perverse or mala fide. Given how BCCL's
interpretation of these clauses was plausible
and not absurd, solely differences in opinion
of contractual interpretation ought not to
have been grounds for the High Court to
come to a finding that the appellant
committed illegality.’
16. Further, in the recent judgment in Silppi
Constructions Contractors v. Union of India
[Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of
India, (2020) 16 SCC 489] , this Court held as
follows : (SCC pp. 501-02, para 20)
‘20. The essence of the law laid down in the
judgments referred to above is the exercise
of restraint and caution; the need for
overwhelming public interest to justify
judicial intervention in matters of contract
involving the state instrumentalities; the
courts should give way to the opinion of
the experts unless the decision is totally
arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does
not sit like a court of appeal over the
appropriate authority; the court must
realise that the authority floating the
tender is the best judge of its requirements
and, therefore, the court's interference
29/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

should be minimal. The authority which
floats the contract or tender, and has
authored the tender documents is the best
judge as to how the documents have to be
interpreted. If two interpretations are
possible then the interpretation of the
author must be accepted. The courts will
only interfere to prevent arbitrariness,
irrationality, bias, mala fides or
perversity. With this approach in mind we
shall deal with the present case.’

17. In accordance with these judgments and noting
that the interpretation of the tendering
authority in this case cannot be said to be a
perverse one, the Division Bench ought not to
have interfered with it by giving its own
interpretation and not giving proper credence
to the word “both” appearing in Condition No.
31 of the NIT For this reason, the Division
Bench's conclusion [New JK Roadways v. State
(UT of J&K), 2020 SCC OnLine J&K 733] that
JK Roadways was wrongly declared to be
ineligible, is set aside.
18. Insofar as Condition No. 27 of the NIT
prescribing work experience of at least 5 years
of not less than the value of Rs 2 crores is
concerned, suffice it to say that the expert body,
being the Tender Opening Committee,
consisting of four members, clearly found that
this eligibility condition had been satisfied by
the appellant before us. Without therefore
going into the assessment of the documents
that have been supplied to this Court, it is well
settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fide
on the part of the tendering authority is
alleged, the expert evaluation of a particular
tender, particularly when it comes to technical
evaluation, is not to be second-guessed by a
writ court . Thus, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa,
(2007) 14 SCC 517] , this Court noted : (SCC
pp. 531-32, para 22)
30/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

‘22. Judicial review of administrative action
is intended to prevent arbitrariness,
irrationality, unreasonableness, bias
and mala fides. Its purpose is to check
whether choice or decision is made
“lawfully” and not to check whether
choice or decision is “sound”. When
the power of judicial review is invoked
in matters relating to tenders or award
of contracts, certain special features
should be borne in mind. A contract is a
commercial transaction. Evaluating
tenders and awarding contracts are
essentially commercial functions.
Principles of equity and natural justice
stay at a distance. If the decision
relating to award of contract is bona
fide and is in public interest, courts will
not, in exercise of power of judicial
review, interfere even if a procedural
aberration or error in assessment or
prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The
power of judicial review will not be
permitted to be invoked to protect
private interest at the cost of public
interest, or to decide contractual
disputes. The tenderer or contractor
with a grievance can always seek
damages in a civil court. Attempts by
unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary
grievances, wounded pride and business
rivalry, to make mountains out of
molehills of some technical/procedural
violation or some prejudice to self, and
persuade courts to interfere by
exercising power of judicial review,
should be resisted. Such interferences,
either interim or final, may hold up
public works for years, or delay relief
and succour to thousands and millions
and may increase the project cost
manifold. Therefore, a court before
interfering in tender or contractual
31/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

matters in exercise of power of judicial
review, should pose to itself the
following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or
decision made by the authority is
mala fide or intended to favour
someone;
OR
Whether the process adopted or
decision made is so arbitrary and
irrational that the court can
say:“the decision is such that no
responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with
relevant law could have reached”;
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there
should be no interference under Article
226. Cases involving blacklisting or
imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of
State largesse (allotment of sites/shops,
grant of licences, dealerships and
franchises) stand on a different footing
as they may require a higher degree of
fairness in action.’
19. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd.
[Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15
SCC 272] , this Court stated as follows :
(SCC p. 288, para 26)
‘26. We respectfully concur with the
aforesaid statement of law. We have
reasons to do so. In the present
scenario, tenders are floated and
offers are invited for highly complex
technical subjects. It requires
understanding and appreciation of
the nature of work and the purpose it
is going to serve. It is common
knowledge in the competitive
32/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

commercial field that technical bids
pursuant to the notice inviting
tenders are scrutinised by the
technical experts and sometimes
third-party assistance from those
unconnected with the owner's
organisation is taken. This ensures
objectivity. Bidder's expertise and
technical capability and capacity
must be assessed by the experts. In
the matters of financial assessment,
consultants are appointed. It is
because to check and ascertain that
technical ability and the financial
feasibility have sanguinity and are
workable and realistic. There is a
multi-prong complex approach;
highly technical in nature. The
tenders where public largesse is put
to auction stand on a different
compartment. Tender with which we
are concerned, is not comparable to
any scheme for allotment. This arena
which we have referred requires
technical expertise. Parameters
applied are different. Its aim is to
achieve high degree of perfection in
execution and adherence to the time
schedule. But, that does not mean,
these tenders will escape scrutiny of
judicial review. Exercise of power of
judicial review would be called for if
the approach is arbitrary or mala
fide or procedure adopted is meant to
favour one. The decision-making
process should clearly show that the
said maladies are kept at bay. But
where a decision is taken that is
manifestly in consonance with the
language of the tender document or
subserves the purpose for which the
tender is floated, the Court should
follow the principle of restraint.

33/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

Technical evaluation or comparison
by the Court would be
impermissible. The principle that is
applied to scan and understand an
ordinary instrument relatable to
contract in other spheres has to be
treated differently than interpreting
and appreciating tender documents
relating to technical works and
projects requiring special skills. The
owner should be allowed to carry out
the purpose and there has to be
allowance of free play in the joints.’

20. This being the case, we are unable to
fathom how the Division Bench, on its own
appraisal, arrived at the conclusion that
the appellant held work experience of only
1 year, substituting the appraisal of the
expert four-member Tender Opening
Committee with its own.”

26. The abovementioned statements of law make it amply clear
that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best
person to understand and appreciate its requirements; and if
its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the
language of the tender document or subserving the purchase
of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint.
Further to that, the technical evaluation or comparison by
the Court is impermissible; and even if the interpretation
given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is
not as such acceptable to the constitutional court, that, by
itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the
interpretation given.”
24. Similarly in Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-East
8
Frontier Railway and Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State
9
Power Generation Company Ltd. & Anr. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
8
(2014) 3 SCC 760
9
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1967
34/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

has considered the rights of participating bidder and held that the bidder

is entitled only to fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the
evaluation of their respective tenders. The authority is the best judge as
to how the terms of the tender are to be interpreted.
25. We find that the Petitioners’ reliance on the judgment of
Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is misplaced and
distinguishable on facts. In that case, a tender was floated by the
Department of School Education, Chattisgarh for supply of sports kits.
The impugned condition was that bidders who possessed similar
experience in other States were excluded from bidding in the tender. It is
in that context that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such entry
barriers restricting bidders from other States vis-a-vis bidders from State
of Chattisgarh are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India. In the present case, the Tender is on an
all-India basis. It does not impose any entry barrier. The Tender is
geographically distributed across 16 State Offices and contemplates 109
separate work orders for 4,730 RVIs. The impugned turnover criterion
operates only as a tie-breaking mechanism for ranking the bidders in
limited circumstances as discussed above. There is nothing manifestly
arbitrary or discriminatory in the impugned conditions in the present
case.
35/36
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46

26. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have followed the same procedure
in an earlier RVI Tender in which 85 contracts were awarded. Similarly,
two other tenders have also been awarded using similar methodology.
All these tenders have been successfully completed. Thus, Respondent
No.2 is also justified in adopting the established methodology as it is the
best judge of its commercial requirements.
27. For all the above reasons, Writ Petition (L) No. 16159 of
2026 and Writ Petition (L) No. 28202 of 2026 are dismissed . Interim
Application (L) No. 27395 of 2026 also stands disposed off.
28. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA
ABHAY
DIXIT
Date:
2026.08.21
17:38:08
+0530
Uploaded on - 27/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:21:46
SNEHA
WP(L)-16159-2026.doc bdp
ABHAY
DIXIT
36/36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)