Ms Laxmi Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 9862 of 2025
MS. LAXMI TOMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi – Senior Advocate with Shri Mohd. Amir Khan
– Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vivek Khedkar – Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General
with Shri Sohit Mishra – Advocate for the respondents/State.
&
WRIT PETITION No.21030/2025
HAPPY TOMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suresh Pal Singh Gurjar – Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vivek Khedkar – Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General
with Shri Sohit Mishra – Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
O R D E R
th
(Passed on this 6 day of March 2026)
Per : Justice Anand Pathak
Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, both the writ petitions
are heard analogously and decided by the common order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

2 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
2. For convenience, facts as narrated in W.P.No.9862/2025 (Ms. Laxmi
Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) are taken into
consideration.
3. Present petition is preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-
(i) That, the impugned letter dated 24.09.2024 of Director
(Annexure P/1), note-sheet dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure
P/2), letter dated 25.09.2024 of Joint Director (Annexure
P/3) and also re-NIT process dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure
P/4).
(ii) That, in alternative the respondents may be directed to
quash the conditions of tender dated 20.02.2025 (which has
been published in newspaper on 21.02.2025) regarding
incorporation of applicant as a company and also 3 years
experience and said conditions may be waived and quashed.
(iii) That, the respondents may also be directed to go further to
finalize tender initiated by the NIT dated 14.03.2024 from
the stage said process was cancelled and conclude the same
within stipulated time as the Hon'ble Court may deem it fit
and proper.
(iv) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.
4. Precisely stated facts of the case are that Govt. of M.P. introduced
concept of C.M. Rise Schools, wherein certain schools are to be made State of
the Art and for that interalia, Government decided to transport students
studying in the said institutions from their respective residence (homes) to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

3 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
school and then back to their homes. In C.M. Rise Schools, Government
clubbed many institutions/activities in one institution.
5. For the aforesaid purpose and for engaging the school buses, an NIT
dt.14.03.2024 was issued by the respondents calling tenders from the persons
who could have plied the vehicles/buses for this purpose. One such purpose
was to give employment to unemployed youth also.
6. Both the petitioners applied for providing buses for transportation of
students in C.M. Rise Schools. Total 70 travel agents/individual persons
applied for grant of contract in response to the NIT.
7. Technical bid was opened on 07.06.2024 and total 58 persons were
found to be valid out of total 70 applicants. It further appears that respondents
also opened the financial bid and petitioners' bid were found to be
lowest/appropriate.
8. It further appears that letter dt.02.08.2024 was issued by the Joint
Director to the Commissioner, Public Instructions seeking approval. However,
Commissioner, Public Instructions, based upon the fact that the adequate
number of persons have not applied for grant of contract in Gwalior and
Chambal Division, recommended for cancellation of same. Thereafter, on
25.09.2024 letter was issued for cancellation of tender process. Thereafter,
entire tender process was cancelled. On 20.02.2025, second NIT, which was
published on 21.02.2025 in the news paper, was issued, whereby some
stringent conditions were imposed by way of provisions of buses by such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

4 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
persons, which/who are incorporated with the concerning Ministry of Govt. of
India and having three years' experience of providing the school buses and
who are incorporated with the Registry of Firms and Societies or the
companies which are registered for providing school buses, were found to be
eligible.
9. This is the bone of contention. Therefore, petitioners preferred both
these petitions before this Court.
10. It is the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners that action on the part of respondents while cancelling earlier
tender process by the impugned proceeding is nothing but arbitrary and illegal
exercise. Out of 70 applicants, total 58 applicants were found to be eligible in
technical and financial bid, therefore, adequate number of applicants were
available.
11. It is further submitted that incorporation of stringent conditions is
nothing but self contradictory. It shows the malafide on the part of
respondents whereby whole process has been re-advertised. Action/in action
of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Counsel for the petitioners also raised the point that the authorities
intend to provide benefit to their favourites. Counsel for the petitioners relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular v.
Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 so also judgment of this Court in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

5 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
Pragmatic Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing and
Infrastructure Development Board and others (W.P.No.11842/2025) .
13. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed
the prayer by filing detailed reply. It is specifically submitted that Govt. of
M.P. is establishing C.M. Rise Schools with the aim of providing high quality
education in every region of the State. C.M.Rise Schools are resource-rich
institutions based on the K-12/K-10 model of education. It caters to the need
of economically and socially weaker sections of the society and to bring
students from remote and rural areas of the State. For this purpose, students
are given transportation facility.
14. It is further submitted that total 533 routes in the Gwalior and Chambal
Division were earmarked. These 58 applicants, who were selected, applied
only for 98 routes. Therefore, despite their selection, around 435 routes within
individual schools remained unallocated. In other words, on 435 routes
nobody wanted to go. Reason is that transporters wanted their favourite
routes. Counsel for respondents specifically mentioned the fact regarding
petitioners that petitioner No.1 applied for route five in C.M. Rise School
Narwar, Shivpuri, which consist of total 8 routes. Therefore, three routes in
the said area remained without any application. Similarly, petitioner No.2
applied for five routes in C.M. Rise School Rajodha, Morena, which had total
6 routes, out of which one route remained unallocated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

6 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
15. It is further submitted that in earlier NIT vendors had an option to file
an application for any one of the routes amongst several provided for that
particular school. Therefore, the earlier NIT did not require the submission of
an incorporation certificate, those allowing smaller vendors to apply under the
NIT. However, the NIT did not yield sufficient applicants for all the routes
because vendors preferred shorter routes. Therefore, under peculiar facts and
considering the holistic approach said NIT was cancelled. This cancellation
was in public interest, otherwise students whose residence lie in routes which
were not preferred by applicants would have been neglected and denied
transportation facilities.
16. It is also submitted that so far as incorporation of new conditions are
concerned, this eligibility criteria is aligned with the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 and relevant State RTO Regulations.
17. Counsel for the respondents also referred the fact that incorporation of
experience of three years will bring more maturity in handling logistics,
managing fleet and maintaining consistent service quality. Not only this,
tested candidates bring reliability where safety and security of students are
paramount. For financial stability and to reduce the likelihood of abrupt
discontinuation of service, it was vital that experienced operators ought to
come in fray.
18. Counsel for the respondents submits that if response to NIT goes
contrary to public interest, then NIT can be cancelled and suitable conditions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

7 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
can always be imposed. Counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of
petition.
19. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record/documents
appended thereto.
20. Law regarding tender process is well settled. In the case of Tata
Cellular (supra) , the exhaustive judgment on different aspects of scope of
judicial review in contract/tender has been discussed. Not only scope of
judicial review but the question of arbitrariness, bias and other related aspects
have been discussed in detail. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment
are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference and for bringing clarity in the
issue :-
68. Having regard to the above arguments we propose to deal
with the matter from the following five aspects :-
1. The scope of judicial review in matters of this kind.
2. Whether the selection is vitiated by arbitrariness ? – (a)
regarding financial projection and (b) regarding rental.
3. Bias of Mr. Nair - Whether affected the selection ?
4. Whether the Apex Committee has been bypassed ?
5. Evolving of hidden criteria - whether valid ?
1. Scope of Judicial Review
69. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is
communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated, the
following are the requisites of a valid tender :
1. It must be unconditional.
2. Must be made at the proper place.
3. Must conform to the terms of obligation.
4. Must be made at the proper time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

8 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
5. Must be made in the proper form.
6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and
willing to perform his obligations.
7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection.
8. Tender must be made to the proper person.
9. It must be of full amount.
70 . It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review
would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by
Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or
favouritism. However it must be clearly stated that there are
inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review.
Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is
expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to
refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the
Government. But the principles laid down in Article 14 of the
Constitution have to be kept in view, while accepting or refusing
a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14
if the Government tries to get the best person or the best
quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an
arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any
collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down.
71. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the
right balance between the administrative discretion to decide
matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of
social policy; thus they are not essentially justiciable and the
need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by
judicial review.
75. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982)
3 All ER 141, 154 Lord Brightman said :
"Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an
appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in
which the decision was made.
xx xx xx
Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision,
but with the decision-making process. Unless that
restriction on the power of the court is observed, the
court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the
abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

9 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
In the same case Lord Hailsham commented on the purpose of
the remedy by way of judicial review under RSC, Ord. 53 in the
following terms :
"This remedy, vastly increased in extent, and rendered,
over a long period in recent years, of infinitely more
convenient access than that provided by the old
prerogative writs and actions for a declaration, is
intended to protect the individual against the abuse of
power by a wide range of authorities, judicial, quasi-
judicial and, as would originally have been thought when
I first practiced at the Bar, administrative. It is not
intended to take away from those authorities the powers
and discretion properly vested in them by law and to
substitute the courts as the bodies making the decisions.
It is intended to see that the relevant authorities use their
powers in a proper manner."
In R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p. Datafin plc,
(1987) 1 All ER 564, Sir John Donaldson, M.R. Commented :
"An application for judicial review is not an appeal."
In Lonrho plc v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (1989)
2 All ER 609, Lord Keith said :
"Judicial review is a protection and not a weapon."
It is thus different from an appeal. When hearing an appeal the
Court is concerned with the merits of the decision under appeal.
In Amin, Re (Amin v. Entry Clearance Officer, (1983) 2 All ER
864 , Lord Fraser observed that :
"Judicial review is concerned not with the merits of a
decision but with the manner in which the decision was
made ..... Judicial review is entirely different from an
ordinary appeal. It is made effective by the court
quashing the administrative decision without
substituting its own decision, and is to be contrasted
with an appeal where the appellate tribunal substitutes
its own decision on the merits for that of the
administrative officer."
77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

10 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
legality. Its concern should be :
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its
powers?
2. Committed an error of law,
3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would
have reached or,
5. Abused its powers.
Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular
policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy
is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those
decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly
will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon
which an administrative action is subject to control by
judicial review can be classified as under:
(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must
understand correctly the law that regulates his
decision-making power and must give effect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury
unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out
addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact,
in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind
1991 (1) AC 696) , Lord Diplock refers specifically to one
development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of
proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the
court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a
nature and degree which requires its intervention".
78. What is this charming principle of Wednesbury
unreasonableness ? Is it a magical formula ? In R. v. Askew
(1768) 4 Burr 2186 : 98 ER 139 , Lord Mansfield considered the
question whether mandamus should be granted against the
College of Physicians. He expressed the relevant principles in
two eloquent sentences. They gained great value two centuries
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

11 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
later :
"It is true, that the judgment and discretion of
determining upon this skill, ability, learning and
sufficiency to exercise and practise this profession is
trusted to the College of Physicians and this Court will
not take it from them, nor interrupt them in the due and
proper exercise of it. But their conduct in the exercise of
this trust thus committed to them ought to be fair,
candid and unprejudiced; not arbitrary, capricious, or
biased; much less, warped by resentment, or personal
dislike."
81. Two other facets of irrationality may be mentioned.
(1) It is open to the court to review the decision-maker's
evaluation of the facts. The court will intervene where the facts
taken as a whole could not logically warrant the conclusion of the
decision-maker. If the weight of facts pointing to one course of
action is overwhelming, then a decision the other way, cannot be
upheld. Thus, in Emma Hotels Ltd. v. Secretary of State for
Environment (1980 41 P & CR 255 ), the Secretary of State
referred to a number of factors which led him to the conclusion
that a non-residents bar in a hotel was operated in such a way that
the bar was not an incident of the hotel use for planning
purposes, but constituted a separate use. The Divisional Court
analysed the factors which led the Secretary of State to that
conclusion and, having done so, set it aside. Donaldson, L.J. said
that he could not see on what basis the Secretary of State had
reached his conclusion.
(2) A decision would be regarded as unreasonable if it is
impartial and unequal in its operation as between different
classes. On this basis in R. v. Barnet London Borough Council,
ex p. Johnson (1989 88 LGR 73 ) the condition imposed by a local
authority prohibiting participation by those affiliated with
political parties at events to be held in the authoritys parks was
struck down.
94. The principles deducible from the above are :
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely
reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

12 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the administrative
decision is permitted it will be substituting its own
decision, without the necessary expertise which itself
may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to
judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in
the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision
to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by
process of negotiations through several tiers. More often
than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by
experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In
other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body functioning in
an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative
sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by
the application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out
above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected
by bias or actuated by mala fides.
\
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative
burden on the administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditure.
Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case
since they commend to us as the correct principles.
21. In the case of Tata Selular (supra), Apex Court interfered in two cases
(out of many cases filed at the instance of service providers) on the ground of
arbitrariness and violation of principle justice. Relevant paragraph No.151 in
this regard is reproduced as under :-
151. In the above two cases, we are obliged to interfere on the
ground of arbitrariness and violation of the principle of natural
justice confining ourselves to the doctrine of judicial restraint,
however, by the application of permissible parameters to set right
.
the decision-making process
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

13 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
22. In the case of Jagdish Mandal (supra) , while relying upon the
judgment delivered in Tata Cellular (supra) as well as Sterling Computers
Limited (supra), Apex Court has given the guidance in the following
manner :-
22 . Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides.
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

14 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
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 black-listing 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.
23. Similarly, in the case of Reliance Energy (supra) , Apex Court held
that “legal certainty' is an important aspect of the rule of law in the
matters of tender because in absence of clarity or objectivity it may result
unequivocal and discriminatory treatment. Apex Court also stressed over
doctrine of 'level playing field'. Relevant discussion is as under :-
37. In Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003)5
SCC 437 , the Division Bench of this Court speaking through
Pasayat, J. had held :
"14. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution
applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the
policy or any action of the Government, even in
contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of
reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.
15.While the discretion to change the policy in exercise
of the executive power, when not trammelled by any
statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and
implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy
must be made fairly and should not give impression that
it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The
wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every
State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone
irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an
accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

15 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
fairness in action by the state, and non-arbitrariness in
essence and substance is the heart beat of fair play.
Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial
review only to the extent that the State must act validly
for a discernible reasons, not whimsically for any
ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and
concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualised than
precisely defined. A question whether the impugned
action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on
the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and
obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether
there is any discernible principle emerging from the
impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test
of reasonableness."
38. When tenders are invited, the terms and conditions must
indicate with legal certainty, norms and benchmarks. This
"legal certainty" is an important aspect of the rule of law. If
there is vagueness or subjectivity in the said norms it may
result in unequal and discriminatory treatment. It may
violate doctrine of "level playing field".
39. In the case of Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v.
Airports Authority of India, (2006)10 SCC 1 , the Division Bench
of this Court has held that in matters of judicial review the basic
test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-
making process and not in the decision itself. This means that the
decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates
his decision-making power and he must give effect to it otherwise
it may result in illegality. The principle of "judicial review"
cannot be denied even in contractual matters or matters in which
the Government exercises its contractual powers, but judicial
review is intended to prevent arbitrariness and it must be
exercised in larger public interest. Expression of different views
and opinions in exercise of contractual powers may be there,
however, such difference of opinion must be based on specified
norms. Those norms may be legal norms or accounting norms. As
long as the norms are clear and properly understood by the
decision-maker and the bidders and other stakeholders,
uncertainty and thereby breach of rule of law will not arise. The
grounds upon which administrative action is subjected to control
by judicial review are classifiable broadly under three heads,
namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. In the
said judgment it has been held that all errors of law are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

16 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
jurisdictional errors. One of the important principles laid down in
the aforesaid judgment is that whenever a norm/benchmark is
prescribed in the tender process in order to provide certainty that
norm/standard should be clear. As stated above "certainty" is an
important aspect of rule of law. In the case of Reliance Airport
Developers (supra), the scoring system formed part of the
evaluation process. The object of that system was to provide
identification of factors, allocation of marks of each of the said
factors and giving of marks had different stages. Objectivity was
thus provided.
24. These judgments are still followed up to Subodh Kumar Singh
Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer and others - AIR 2024 SC 3784.
25. Now said legal position and guidelines given by the Apex Court is to be
tested on the facts and circumstances of the case.
26. C.M. Rise School is a flagship approach of the State Govt. with the aim
of providing high quality education in every region of the State. The goal of
these Light House Schools is to instill knowledge, skill and value of
citizenship in children. It also aims at welfare of students of marginalized
sections of society and students of remote and rural areas. All these students
are to be transported from their residence to respective C.M. Rise Schools.
27. In response to NIT, it is found that out of 533 routes only 98 routes
were agreed by 58 applicants for transportation which means around 435
routes were left abundant. It further means that those students, who live on
those routes, were not going to get the facility of transportation from
residence (home) to school. Apparently 98 routes were those routes which
were shorter routes and profitable to vendors. This created anomalous
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

17 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
situation. Whether students of remaining 435 routes could have been stranded
or left alone or a holistic approach was required to include them also.
28. Respondents rightly adopted the holistic approach by cancelling the
said NIT. Respondents did right thing while cancelling NIT because it made
exclusion more prominent than inclusion. The very purpose of transportation
could have been defeated if said NIT would have been maintained by the
respondents. Therefore, in public interest and in the interest of institutions and
students, right approach was adopted by the respondents.
29. Now comes to the incorporation of some stringent conditions. As
submitted by the respondents (in return also it is mentioned), these conditions
are incorporated to get aligned with Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and in line with relevant State RTO Regulations.
If the condition of registration with experience of three years is incorporated,
then it is for betterment of students. Respondents in their reply have
mentioned following reasons in specific terms :-
First, a company that has been operational for at least three years
is more likely to have experience in handling logistics, managing
a fleet, and maintaining consistent service quality.
Second, reducing the risk of entering into contracts with newly
formed or untested entities that may lack the necessary capacity
and reliability is crucial. This becomes especially critical
considering the development of buses for school-going children,
where and security are paramount.
Third, the longevity of operations is indicative of financial
stability and reduces the likelihood of abrupt discontinuation of
services, which is vital for ensuring uninterrupted school or
college transportation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM

18 W.P. Nos.9862/2025 & 21030/2025
Fourth, an experienced firm is also more likely to already possess
the necessary infrastructure, including vehicles, drivers,
maintenance systems, and managerial protocols, to deliver
efficient and safe transportation services.
30. Perusal of these conditions indicate that approach of respondents was
reasonable and in the interest of students. Therefore, it can not be termed as
arbitrary or contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In fact, earlier
NIT had the trappings of discrimination and apparently had trappings of
violation of fundamental rights of those students who could have denied
transportation facilities, thus hitting Article 19/21 of the Constitution of India.
31. Judgments relied upon by the petitioners are of no help to the cause of
petitioners. Respondents rightly proceeded in larger public interest for fresh
NIT. Therefore, cancellation of earlier NIT was just legal and proper and
issuance of second NIT was within their competence, authority and bear
reasonableness.
32. In cumulative analysis, no case for interference is made out.
Resultantly, both the petitions are dismissed. Interim order passed by this
Court earlier stands vacated. Respondents may proceed in NIT dt.20.02.2025
in accordance with law/procedure.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE

SP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 3/7/2026
3:02:03 PM