Tender authorities may impose reasonable prior-supply thresholds to ensure bidders can meet continuity requirements.

The Director, Textbook Production and Marketing invited a tender on 11 September 2026 for 26,450 MT of 70 GSM Maplitho reel paper with watermark. The tender required bidders to demonstrate past supply of Maplitho virgin paper with watermark, in an amount equal to at least 60% of the tender quantity or 11,000 MT annually in each of the preceding three years to specified government or semi-government bodies

After objections at a pre-bid meeting, the authority issued a corrigendum reducing the annual minimum from 11,000 MT to 10,000 MT

The petitioner challenged the eligibility condition as arbitrary, excessive, and restrictive of competition, and alleged that it violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

1. Whether the tender condition requiring prior annual supply of the specified paper, in the prescribed quantity over the preceding three years, was arbitrary, unreasonable, or otherwise violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

2. Whether the authority’s decision to retain the condition, while reducing the minimum quantity after the pre-bid meeting, warranted interference under Article 226

Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) require State action in tendering to be fair, non-arbitrary, and consistent with equality and the level-playing-field principle; restrictions on trade must also satisfy Article 19(6)

Under Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138, and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216, courts review the decision-making process and generally defer to tender authorities’ choices of eligibility conditions, intervening where the action is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide, or contrary to public interest; authorities may prescribe qualifications to ensure a bidder’s capacity and resources

Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer, AIR 2024 SC 3784, states that arbitrariness may be assessed by asking whether the action rests on a discernible principle that satisfies reasonableness

In Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, SLP (C) No. 24075 of 2025, decided 6 October 2026, a tender restriction based on prior supplies to agencies within a particular State was held unconstitutional where it excluded experienced outside suppliers without just cause

The Court accepted that tender conditions are reviewable but held that the challenged experience requirement had a rational connection to ensuring bidders could provide continuous supplies for textbook production, where interruption could affect the education system

The tender’s stated production-capacity requirement of 200 MT per day further supported the authority’s concern with timely and uninterrupted supply

Unlike the State-specific restriction considered in Vinishma Technologies, the condition here was not found to exclude bidders merely because they had supplied outside Odisha; the Court found a discernible capacity-related rationale for requiring prior supplies

The authority’s reduction of the threshold after considering pre-bid objections also did not demonstrate arbitrariness or capriciousness

It dismissed the writ petition