Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bharti Airtel Limited and its officer, challenged a tender issued by Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Limited (MahaIT) for the supply of bandwidth services. The tender required bidders to have supplied bandwidth services to a government department in the preceding three years. Bharti Airtel, a major private telecom service provider, did not meet this condition as it had not supplied bandwidth to any government department, though it had supplied to private entities. The petitioners argued that the condition was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it excluded capable bidders like Bharti Airtel. They also contended that BSNL, a state-owned entity, was allowed to participate despite not meeting the condition, and that Reliance Jio was similarly placed. The court dismissed the petition, holding that tender conditions are not open to judicial review unless they are arbitrary or mala fide. The condition requiring government experience was rationally connected to the object of ensuring reliable service for government use. The court noted that BSNL's participation was justified as it was a government entity, and there was no evidence that Reliance Jio was allowed without meeting the condition. The court emphasized that there is no right to seek re-framing of tender conditions and that Article 14 does not require equality in illegal or irregular matters. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Tender Eligibility Conditions - Judicial Review - The court considered whether a tender condition requiring prior experience of supplying bandwidth services to a government department was arbitrary. Held that tender conditions are not open to judicial review unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. Courts must defer to the expertise of the tender-making body. The condition was rationally connected to the object of ensuring reliable service for government use. (Paras 1-28) B) Contract Law - Tender - Eligibility Criteria - Past Experience - The court examined the requirement of three years' experience in supplying bandwidth to a government department. Held that such a condition is not per se arbitrary and is a legitimate way to assess capability. The petitioner's argument that it was excluded despite having experience with private entities was rejected. (Paras 15-20) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Equality - Right to Tender - The court held that there is no fundamental right to have a tender condition re-framed. Article 14 does not require equality in matters that are illegal or irregular. The petitioner cannot claim that because another bidder was allowed to participate without meeting the condition, the condition should be waived for all. (Paras 21-28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eligibility condition in a tender requiring bidders to have supplied bandwidth services to a government department in the preceding three years is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender conditions are not open to judicial review unless arbitrary or mala fide
- Courts must defer to expert tender-making bodies
- Eligibility criteria must be rationally connected to the object of the tender
- No right to seek re-framing of tender conditions
- Article 14 does not require equality in illegal or irregular matters
