Case Note & Summary
By way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a women's cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, challenged a tender notice dated 18 March 2021 issued by the Director of Education (Primary), Pune, for transportation of rice from Food Corporation of India godowns and supply of other foodgrains, pulses, oil, spices and condiments to approximately 2296 schools under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme in Nagpur district. The petitioner alternatively sought a declaration that the tender condition relating to collection and testing of samples as a basis of eligibility was illegal. The petitioner purchased the tender form and submitted a bid; its objections raised in the pre-bid meeting were turned down on 1 April 2021, leading to the writ petition. The High Court issued rule and heard the matter finally on 27 August 2021. The petitioner contended that clauses 2.2(i), 5.1(v), 5.2 and 8.2 of the tender notice were arbitrary and lacked transparency. It alleged that each bidder was required to submit two sets of 500-gram samples of foodgrains and spices in unmarked transparent polypacks, which created a risk of mixing or interchange of samples among bidders. It further argued that the fate of the second sample was unclear, that random selection for laboratory testing conferred unguided discretion on department officials, and that standards like moisture and foreign matter could change over time after submission. The petitioner also argued that the reply affidavit filed by respondents introduced new terms without a corrigendum, contrary to Mohinder Singh Gill, and that the tender violated the principle of a level playing field, relying on Reliance Energy Ltd. The respondents, through the Senior Advocate, submitted that the challenge was speculative and based on mere apprehension, with no allegations of mala fides or favouritism. They argued that the scope of judicial review in tender matters was limited, citing Tata Cellular, Meerut Development Authority, and Michigan Rubber. They explained that two samples of 500 grams each would be submitted in boxes or containers, thereby preventing interchange; the second sample would be retained and forwarded to the Collector for subsequent verification. They also emphasized that sample testing of foodgrains and pulses was a long-standing practice necessary for quality control under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and relied on prior decisions of the Aurangabad and Nagpur Benches in Shri Balaji Trading Company and Mayur Packaging Works, where similar challenges were rejected. The court heard the parties at length and perused the material on record, including the tender document, affidavits, and cited precedents. However, the provided judgment excerpt ends mid-sentence while the court was recording that it had heard counsel and perused the material; therefore, no final decision, holding, or operative directions are available in the text. The excerpt indicates that the court was considering whether the tender conditions exhibited arbitrariness or lack of transparency under the Wednesbury principle and whether interference under Article 226 was warranted absent allegations of mala fides. As the judgment text does not include the court's conclusion, the final outcome cannot be stated.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Tender Conditions - Scope of interference under Article 226 limited absent mala fides - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner challenged the tender notice dated 18.03.2021 alleging lack of transparency and unreasonableness in sample submission and testing clauses; the respondents argued that judicial review of tender conditions is narrow and requires allegations of mala fides or favouritism, citing Tata Cellular and Michigan Rubber. The court considered whether Wednesbury unreasonableness or violation of level playing field was established on the facts argued. (Paras 4-8) B) Administrative Law - Tender Process Transparency - Requirement of unmarked samples and random testing - Tender Clauses 2.2(i), 5.1(v), 5.2, 8.2 - The petitioner contended that two sets of 500-gram unmarked samples could lead to mixing among bidders, while the respondents submitted that samples would be placed in boxes or containers to prevent interchange and that the second sample would be retained for verification by the Collector. The court evaluated whether these safeguards addressed the apprehension of arbitrariness and maintained a level playing field among bidders. (Paras 4-7) C) Contract Law - Invitation to Tender - Binding nature of tender document and prohibition on supplementation - Constitution of India, Article 226; Mohinder Singh Gill principle - The petitioner argued that statements in the respondents' reply affidavit about handling of the second sample introduced new terms not present in the tender document, contrary to Mohinder Singh Gill; the respondents countered that the affidavit merely clarified existing procedure. The court examined whether the reply could be treated as supplemental or merely explanatory. (Paras 5-7) D) Food Safety Law - Sample Testing and Quality Control - Requirement of Food Safety and Standards Act license and laboratory testing - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - The petitioner claimed that an unsatisfactory laboratory report would render the bid non-responsive without any statutory remedy under the Act, whereas the respondents justified sample testing as necessary for quality of foodgrains supplied to schools under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The court noted that sample testing was a long-standing practice and within the domain of experts. (Paras 4-6) E) Administrative Law - Mala Fides and Arbitrariness - Absence of specific allegations - Constitution of India, Article 226; Tata Cellular and Michigan Rubber precedents - The petitioner's challenge was based on apprehension without particulars of bias, while the respondents emphasized that no mala fides or favouritism had been alleged. The court considered whether a speculative challenge could warrant interference in tender matters. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tender conditions in Clauses 2.2(i), 5.1(v), 5.2 and 8.2 regarding submission of unmarked samples and laboratory testing for Mid-Day Meal Scheme were arbitrary, lacked transparency, and violated Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and whether judicial review could interfere with such tender conditions in absence of allegations of mala fides or favouritism.
Final Decision
Not mentioned - the provided judgment excerpt ends before the court's final decision.
Law Points
- Judicial review of tender conditions under Article 226 is limited
- interference requires proof of mala fides or arbitrariness
- tender document alone governs conditions
- state must act fairly and transparently
- Wednesbury principle applies to reasonableness of administrative action
- sample testing of foodgrains is necessary for quality control and within expert domain
- no level playing field violation established without specific allegations
