SIDCUL SOLUTION NETWORK vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010198332026
2026:UHC:10294-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 932 OF 2026
TH
5 NOVEMBER, 2026
SIDCUL Solution Network …… Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel with Mr.
Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, learned
Standing Counsel for the State
: Mr. Devendra Singh Bohra, learned
counsel for respondent No. 4
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
1) Petitioner has challenged Condition Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7
and 11, as mentioned in the bid document, issued by Municipal
Board, Mahuakhera Ganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2) The English translation of Condition Nos. 5, 6, 7
and 11 are reproduced below :
“5. Work orders of any 05 Municipal Boards in
solid waste management / experience certificate
regarding 05 years satisfactory completion of
work; especially in door to door collection,
transportation, MRF, composting, recycling /
compacting and experience certificate of RDF
disposal.
1
UKHC010198332026
2026:UHC:10294-DB
6. Certificate duly issued by the competent
authority specifying that the firm has satisfactorily
completed the work in the Boards/Institutions.
There is mention of 05 Boards / 05 years
experience in the original file.
7. CV and education/experience certificate of
Environment Specialist/Technical Specialist. In
the original documents options like post
graduation in Environment and 03 years
experience, or concerned specialization in
Environment / MSW specialization, or Civil
Engineering graduate and 03 years experience,
are mentioned.
11. Proof relating to at least 05 suitable
commercial/ availability of 05 cleaning vehicles…
Legal affidavit relating to photocopies of
Registration Certificate or affidavit regarding
availability of vehicles.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
aforementioned conditions stipulated in the technical bid of
the tender issued by the Municipal Board are harsh and
hyper technical conditions, and failure on the part of the
petitioner to fulfill these conditions, would debar the
petitioner from participating in the tender process. Learned
counsel further submits that condition No. 11 which
stipulates that registration certificate of five commercial
vehicle is to be provided by a bidder, is arbitrary inasmuch
as the Municipal Board has its own vehicles and vehicles of
the contractor is not required at all. He further submits that
the conditions put in the technical bid of the tender are
illegal. Lastly, it is submitted that technical bid condition
Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 stipulated in the e-tender bid dated
2
UKHC010198332026
2026:UHC:10294-DB
28.10.2026, issued by the Municipal Board, are liable to be
quashed.
4) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
cannot be accepted. The petitioner has yet not participated
in the tender process and has not made any offer. Even
otherwise also, a bidder, who participates or intends to
participate in the tender process, has no other right except
a right to equality and fair treatment in the evaluation of
competitive bids. The authority inviting bids is not bound to
act according to the whims and fancies of a bidder.
5) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Directorate of Education & others Vs. Educomp
Datamatics Ltd. & others reported as (2004) 4 SCC 19
has held that terms of the invitation to tender are not open
to judicial scrutiny, as the same are in the realm of
contract. Para 12 of the said judgment is reproduced
below:-
“12. It has clearly been held in these decisions
that the terms of the invitation to tender are
not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in
the realm of contract. That the Government
must have a free hand in setting the terms of
the tender. It must have reasonable play in its
joints as a necessary concomitant for an
administrative body in an administrative
sphere. The courts would interfere with the
administrative policy decision only if it is
arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated
by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments
which may be called for by the particular
circumstances. The courts cannot strike down
the terms of the tender prescribed by the
3
UKHC010198332026
2026:UHC:10294-DB
Government because it feels that some other
terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser
or logical. The courts can interfere only if the
policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or
mala fide.”
6) Also, in the case of Afcons Infrastructure
Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,
reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 , Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under:-
“13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the
decision making process or the decision of the
administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional
court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to
favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity
must be met before the constitutional court interferes with
the decision-making process or the decision.”
7) In Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), it was
further held that the owner or employer of a project, having
authored the tender documents, is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret
its documents; constitutional Courts must defer to his
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 was further held that it is possible that
the owner or employer of a project may give an
interpretation to the tender documents, which is not
acceptable to the Constitutional Courts, but that by itself is
not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.
4
UKHC010198332026
2026:UHC:10294-DB
8) In view of the settled law on the point, challenge
thrown by the petitioner to conditions in the tender notice
cannot be entertained. The conditions cannot be said to be
tailor made to suit some rival bidder. Since every bidder
would have to meet the requirement of those conditions,
therefore, there is no scope for interference.
9) The writ petition is, however, disposed of with a
direction to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board
concerned to consider the objection submitted by the
petitioner and pass appropriate order, as per law, within
two weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of
this Order.
10) Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
_________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
TH
Dt: 5 NOVEMBER, 2026
Negi
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a
af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5
757, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC
51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C1
8DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI
Date: 2026.11.06 17:51:50 +05'30'
HIMANS
HU NEGI
5