Rajasthan HC Rejects Non-Bidder’s PIL Against Bikaner’s 7-Year Urban Tax Tender, Finds Eligibility Criteria Rational

In brief

The question

Whether a person who did not participate in the tender could maintain a PIL challenging a purely commercial tender process

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner lacked standing to maintain the PIL and, independently, had failed to establish that the tender notice or corrigendum was arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or contrary to the RTPP Act or Rules.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed; pending applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner filed a PIL challenging the Bikaner Municipal Corporation’s tender notice dated 10.07.2026 and corrigendum dated 27.07.2026 for surveying properties, billing and collecting Urban Development Tax under a seven-year contract.

¶ 1–5

He alleged that the revised tender diluted eligibility requirements despite an increase in the contract’s estimated value, creating a risk of favouritism.

¶ 1–5

The petitioner had not participated in the tender process.

¶ 1–5

The Corporation maintained that the revised framework retained relevant survey, technical and financial qualifications, and that the survey obligation had expanded to cover all properties within the municipal limits.

¶ 6–9

02Issues

i.Whether a person who did not participate in the tender could maintain a PIL challenging a purely commercial tender process

¶ 12–16

ii.Whether the revised eligibility conditions and the corrigendum were arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or contrary to the RTPP Act and Rules

¶ 21–28

03Law Applied

Under Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India and Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, a stranger may not ordinarily challenge a commercial transaction through a PIL absent substantial and demonstrable public interest, such as a constitutional violation or arbitrary State action.

¶ 12–13

The Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices likewise requires restraint in PILs concerning tenders unless the impugned decision is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, mala fide or illegal.

¶ 14

Under Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, and Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the procuring authority has latitude to frame tender conditions; judicial review concerns the legality and fairness of the decision-making process, and interference is warranted for such defects as arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or illegality—not merely because another approach was possible.

¶ 17–21

Sections 7 and 14 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (RTPP Act) place the determination of bidder qualifications primarily with the procuring entity, subject to fairness and non-arbitrariness; Section 23 of the Act and Rules 46 and 47 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 permit clarification or modification of bidding documents in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

¶ 22, 27

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 Section 7 Section 14 Section 23

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner, as a non-participant, had shown neither a violation of fundamental rights nor substantial and demonstrable public interest sufficient to maintain the PIL.

¶ 15

On the merits, the fixed target of 40,000 taxable properties had been replaced by a requirement to survey all properties, taxable and non-taxable, in the municipal limits, which the Court considered an enlarged obligation in light of revised ward boundaries.

¶ 24

Read as a whole, the revised criteria retained door-to-door survey experience and added or specified municipal-body IT project experience and turnover requirements; the petitioner did not establish that the restructuring was irrational or unrelated to the work.

¶ 25–26

The corrigendum followed the pre-bid meeting and was issued before the bid-submission deadline, and no breach of the statutory procedure or evidence of favouritism was shown.

¶ 27–28