Tendering Authority’s Discretion to Fix Single-Contract Experience Criteria for Technology-Driven Infrastructure Projects is Not Arbitrary.

The Petitioner challenged a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 05.06.2026 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for toll collection and the upgrade of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system to a Multi-Lane Free Flow (MLFF) system

The Petitioner specifically challenged the technical eligibility criterion requiring experience of operating a minimum of 122 lanes under a single contract for at least two years

The Petitioner argued this was restrictive, as the Respondent had previously withdrawn similar conditions in 2025, calling them anti-competitive

The Respondent contended the condition was necessary for the high-tech MLFF transition mandated by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to be completed by October 2026

Out of seven bidders, three (excluding the Petitioner) successfully met the impugned criteria

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint in tender matters, noting that the award of contracts is a commercial function where the State is afforded "play in the joints"

Relying on Tata Cellular v. Union of India, it held that judicial review is limited to the decision-making process rather than the merits

Under Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, the executive has the primary domain to fix eligibility criteria unless they are mala fide or arbitrary

The Court utilized the "three-question test" from Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa to determine if the process was intended to favor someone, was irrational/arbitrary, or affected public interest

stipulated criteria under Article 14 must ensure a level playing field but do not mandate the dilution of standards to accommodate specific bidders

The Court reasoned that the transition from conventional tolling to an integrated MLFF system involving ANPR and RFID integration across 244 lanes was a work of significant complexity, justifying higher experience standards

It rejected the Petitioner's argument that experience across multiple smaller contracts is equivalent to a single large integrated contract, stating such commercial assessments belong to the tendering authority

The Court found the Respondent’s reversal from its 2025 position (where it called the 122-lane rule restrictive) was justified by new circumstances, namely the technology-driven MLFF mandate and strict timelines imposed by the Supreme Court

Regarding competitiveness, the Court observed that since three other bidders qualified and similar criteria exist in other states, the condition was not "tailor-made" to exclude competition

The Petitioner's failure to qualify was attributed to its inability to meet criteria independently after the dissolution of its previous Joint Venture, rather than any inherent arbitrariness in the NIT

The Court found no violation of Article 14 or 19(1)(g), as the Petitioner’s financial strength cannot substitute for specific operational experience

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were closed