Minimum vehicle-fleet ownership is a rational eligibility condition for ration-delivery tenders.

The petitioners, who had previously participated in tenders for transporting ration by arranging third-party vehicles, challenged a revised State policy dated 28 July 2026.

The policy required individual bidders to own specified vehicles, registered either in their own names or in the names of specified family members, and also imposed a separate vehicle-attachment requirement.

They contended that the ownership conditions excluded them from the tender process and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The State maintained that the requirements were introduced to secure timely and uninterrupted delivery of food grains to fair-price shops, including in emergent situations.

1. Whether the revised policy’s requirement that an individual bidder own specified vehicles, in the bidder’s or eligible family members’ names, was arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the ownership and vehicle-attachment requirements impermissibly restricted the petitioners’ right to carry on an occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).

Section 24(2)(a) of the National Food Security Act, 2013 places on the State Government the duty to organise intra-State allocation and ensure delivery of food grains to fair-price shops.

Clause 8(3) of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 requires physical delivery to fair-price shops by the end of the month preceding the allocation month, and in any event no later than the first week of the allocation month.

Under Article 14, a classification is permissible where it rests on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

The right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to applicable eligibility criteria and reasonable restrictions; it does not confer an unconditional right to participate in a particular tender.

Relying on Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 695, the Court stated that judicial review of policy is limited to legality and constitutional or statutory compliance, not the policy’s wisdom.

The Court distinguished Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 1182, which concerned an allegedly arbitrary tender condition limiting eligibility by reference to prior supplies within one State.

The Court accepted that the State had a statutory duty to ensure timely delivery and could select an authorised agency on terms it considered appropriate to discharge that duty.

It held that the distinction between bidders meeting the minimum fleet-ownership requirement and those who did not was intelligible, and that ensuring bidders were not dependent on third-party vehicles had a rational connection to timely, reliable delivery.

The separate vehicle-attachment requirement did not replace or negate the ownership requirement; the Court treated it as an additional eligibility condition.

The petitioners’ prior eligibility under the earlier practice did not prevent the State from revising its policy in the public interest, and the Court found no showing that the revision was tailored to favour particular individuals.

It therefore found no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g).

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.