Tendering authorities have wide discretion to set eligibility criteria absent proof of arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides.

The appellant challenged the terms of a Request for Proposal (RFP) dated February 9, 2026, issued for providing a surveillance system (live web streaming, CCTV, and GPS tracking) for the 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly elections.

The appellant specifically contested Clause 4(4) and Clause 5 of the eligibility criteria, which required cumulative experience in web streaming (1,30,000 cameras), CCTV installation at counting centers (3,000 cameras), and GPS tracking for vehicles across multiple state-level orders.

The appellant argued these conditions were anti-competitive, irrational, and tailor-made to suit a few entities.

A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on February 27, 2026, leading to this appeal.

The terms of an invitation to tender are within the realm of contract and generally not open to judicial scrutiny unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide.

The Court relied on the "Wednesbury principle of reasonableness" and the principles established in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, which restrict court interference to the decision-making process rather than the decision itself.

While a "level playing field" is required, authorities have the latitude to set stringent experience criteria to ensure technical capability and reliability for critical public tasks.

The scale of the West Bengal election—comprising over 80,000 polling stations and 108 counting halls—justified more stringent experience requirements compared to smaller states like Kerala.

The Court found a direct rational nexus between the eligibility criteria and the scope of work; specifically, GPS tracking was essential for securing EVM movement, and CCTV experience was necessary for monitoring counting halls.

The appellant’s request during pre-bid meetings was for a relaxation of the numbers (e.g., from 3,000 to 400 cameras) rather than a total challenge to the relevance of the criteria, which implied the criteria were not redundant.

Past experience is a valid objective criterion to ensure efficiency, reliability, and logistical maturity for a project of national importance.

The Court refused to substitute its view for the executive’s, stating that the tendering authority must have "fair play in the joints" to set terms that safeguard public interest.

The eligibility criteria were neither arbitrary nor irrational and were based on the specific operational requirements of the West Bengal elections.

The Court found no evidence of mala fide intent or favoritism toward specific bidders.

The prayer for stay of the judgment was rejected.