Tender conditions cannot be judicially invalidated absent arbitrariness, favoritism, or a tailor-made exclusionary design.

The petitioner challenged three BSNL e-NITs issued through the Government e-Marketplace for housekeeping, operational upkeep and office-support services at Rajouri, Jammu and other locations.

The principal objection was that the tenders adopted a lump-sum contractual model instead of a manpower-outsourcing model, allegedly making compliance with labour laws—including minimum wages, payment of wages, bonus, equal remuneration, EPF and ESI legislation—legally and practically unworkable.

The respondents contended that the tender documents expressly required compliance with all applicable labour laws and that the petitioner had previously filed four similar writ petitions, which were withdrawn on 12 March 2026.

They also submitted that the Rajouri tender was still under process and that the petitioner had not participated in it.

The tender conditions required contractors to pay wages, comply with labour and statutory laws, maintain relevant records, and bear responsibility for labour-law violations.

1. Whether the impugned BSNL e-NITs were liable to be quashed merely because they adopted a lump-sum model rather than a manpower-outsourcing model, allegedly risking non-compliance with labour laws.

2. Whether the High Court could judicially review and interfere with the tender conditions in the absence of an allegation or demonstration that they were tailor-made to favour a particular bidder, arbitrary, mala fide, or intended to exclude eligible bidders.

The Court applied the principle that terms of an invitation to tender ordinarily lie within the contractual and administrative domain of the tendering authority and are not subject to routine judicial scrutiny.

Relying on Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171, it held that limited judicial review may be exercised where tender conditions are tailor-made to favour a particular person, exclude eligible bidders, or disclose arbitrariness, mala fides, favouritism, or a hidden agenda.

The Court also applied the tender clauses requiring compliance with applicable labour laws, including wage, EPF, ESI and other employment-related legislation, and making the contractor responsible for payment of wages and consequences of labour-law violations.

It further reiterated that, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court cannot act as an appellate authority or substitute its own view for that of the tendering authority merely because another contractual model may appear more desirable.

The Court found that the petitioner’s challenge was confined to the alleged labour-law consequences of the lump-sum tender model and did not assert that the tender conditions had been designed to benefit a particular bidder or exclude competitors.

Applying the limited-review principle in Meerut Development Authority, the Court held that such a grievance, without proof of arbitrariness, favouritism, mala fides or a hidden agenda, did not justify interference with the NITs.

The express contractual obligations requiring payment of wages, compliance with minimum-wage and other labour legislation, maintenance of wage and EPF records, and responsibility for statutory violations further weakened the challenge.

The Court therefore declined to examine whether a manpower-based tender would have been a more prudent or workable administrative choice.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, along with the connected miscellaneous application(s), if any.