Incidental collection during cattle fairs does not satisfy specialised public user-charge experience requirements.

The Market Committee, Ludhiana issued a DNIT on 13.02.2026 for collection and realisation of user charges from vehicles using Mandi infrastructure for the period 01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027.

Micky Traders was declared technically responsive and its bid of ₹16,51,51,000 was accepted as the highest, while L.R.Y. Labour Contractor quoted ₹15,03,33,000.

L.R.Y. challenged Micky Traders’ eligibility on the ground that it lacked the experience required under Clause 9(c)(a) of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board’s enlistment instructions, namely successful execution of annual user-charge or parking-fee collection work during the preceding two years up to 31.12.2025.

The High Court quashed Micky Traders’ technical and financial bid and the Letter of Acceptance, directing the authorities to issue a Letter of Acceptance to the eligible tenderer.

1. Whether Micky Traders’ experience in organising cattle fairs constituted the specialised experience of collecting user charges or parking fees required by Clause 9(c)(a) of the enlistment instructions.

2. Whether the experience certificates relating to other entities could be attributed to Micky Traders merely because its proprietor allegedly had an association with those entities.

3. Whether the High Court exceeded the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters by interfering with the tendering authority’s assessment of eligibility.

4. Whether the enlistment instructions and the experience requirement could be treated as directory or relaxed in favour of Micky Traders because its bid was financially higher.

The Court applied the settled principles governing judicial review of public tenders: courts review the decision-making process, not the commercial merits of the decision, and interference is justified only for illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, mala fides, bias, perversity, or patent arbitrariness.

Although the author of a tender document is ordinarily its best interpreter, the interpretation must be capable of being supported by the language of the tender and must not be unfair, perverse, or arbitrary.

Essential eligibility conditions must ordinarily be enforced strictly, whereas ancillary conditions may in appropriate cases admit substantial compliance.

Under Clause 9(c)(a), the bidder had to produce completion certificates evidencing successful execution of annual collection of user charges or parking fees for Government, semi-Government, or PSU organisations during the last two years up to 31.12.2025.

Revenue considerations cannot cure a bidder’s failure to satisfy a mandatory eligibility requirement.

The Court held that Clause 9(c)(a) required specialised, accountable experience in collecting public user charges or parking fees on behalf of a Government, semi-Government, or PSU authority.

Such work involved gate management, ticketing or token systems, cash handling, reconciliation, accounting to the authority, and supervision over a sustained contractual period.

Organising a cattle fair was materially different: under the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Rules, 1968, the fair organiser was essentially a lessee who paid rent for use of the fairground.

Any charges collected from vehicles or stallholders were collected for the organiser’s own account and were merely incidental to the fair contract, not collected on behalf of and accounted for to a public authority.

The certificates also did not establish that Micky Traders itself had performed the relevant work; they referred to different entities, and no partnership deeds, registration documents, or other material proved the alleged connection with Micky Traders’ proprietor.

The Committee’s acceptance of this experience was therefore dehors the tender terms and patently arbitrary, justifying judicial review.

The Court further held that Micky Traders could not rely on a contrary interpretation after having accepted its disqualification under identical clauses in tenders issued at Patiala and Rajpura.

The higher bid amount was irrelevant because only eligible bidders could be compared.

Experience in organising cattle fairs, without proof of specialised public user-charge or parking-fee collection, was insufficient; nor could the experience of unconnected entities be attributed to Micky Traders.

The High Court had properly exercised judicial review because the Committee’s interpretation was arbitrary and inconsistent with the tender conditions.

Both appeals were dismissed, the quashing of Micky Traders’ technical and financial bids and the Letter of Acceptance was upheld, and there was no order as to costs.