Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, I-Net Secure Labs Private Limited, a company engaged in election webcasting and surveillance services, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging certain conditions in an e-Tender (Ref.No.5/2026/900) dated 03.03.2026 issued by the third respondent (Additional Chief Electoral Officer) for Live Webcasting in Polling Stations and Recording on Counting Day for the General Elections to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, 2026. Specifically, the petitioner challenged Condition 4 Sl. No 1, which required a minimum annual turnover of Rs. 100 crores, and Condition 4 Sl. No 5, which required experience of similar work. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash these conditions and direct the respondents to modify them to permit consortium and accept cumulative turnover or proportionate average annual turnover. The petitioner argued that the conditions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, as they excluded smaller companies like the petitioner despite its substantial experience (having deployed over 1,80,000 cameras cumulatively in various states including Tamil Nadu). The respondents, represented by Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, defended the conditions as necessary to ensure the timely and efficient conduct of elections, emphasizing the urgency and scale of the project. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of public interest. The court found that the conditions were reasonable, proportionate to the estimated value of the tender, and based on legitimate government objectives. The court noted that the authority had the discretion to set eligibility criteria and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or mala fides. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the tender conditions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Tender Conditions - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - The court examined whether tender conditions imposing minimum annual turnover and experience criteria were arbitrary and unreasonable. Held that the court's scope of interference in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or public interest; the conditions were found to be reasonable and not arbitrary (Paras 2-10). B) Tender Law - Eligibility Criteria - Turnover and Experience - The petitioner challenged Condition 4 Sl. No 1 (minimum annual turnover of Rs. 100 crores) and Condition 4 Sl. No 5 (experience of similar work). The court held that the conditions were proportionate to the tender's estimated value and nature, and the authority's decision to not allow consortium or cumulative turnover was a policy decision not open to interference (Paras 11-18). C) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 - The petitioner argued that the conditions were discriminatory as they excluded smaller players. The court held that Article 14 does not require equal treatment of unequals; the conditions were based on rational classification and legitimate government objectives (Paras 19-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eligibility conditions in Tender Ref.No.5/2026/900, particularly Condition 4 Sl. No 1 (minimum annual turnover) and Condition 4 Sl. No 5 (experience), are arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether the court should direct modification to permit consortium or cumulative turnover.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court upheld the tender conditions and found no arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
Law Points
- Tender conditions
- eligibility criteria
- judicial review of tender conditions
- Article 226
- writ of certiorarified mandamus
- consortium
- turnover criteria
- proportionality
- reasonableness
- non-arbitrariness
