Chattisgarh High Court
Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14367-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1175 of 2026
Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited Through Its State Representative, Shri
Basudev Majhi, S/o Shri Ramlal Majhi Aged About 36 Years R/o Khunshi,
Lolki, Distt. Surajpur, C.G.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Commercial Tax And Excise
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (Csmcl) Through Its
Managing Director, 4th Floor, Aabkari Bhawan, Labhandih, District Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited
(Csmcl) 4th Floor, Aabkari Bhawan, Labhandih, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate along with VED PRAKASH Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate DEWANGAN Digitally signed by For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional A.G. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.01 19:42:36 +0530 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/03/2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-Company, namely Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the tender conditions incorporated by the respondents in the procurement process initiated for empanelment of placement agencies for supply of manpower. The primary challenge of the petitioner is directed against the prescription of a minimum average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore for the preceding three financial years, as stipulated in Clause 3.5 of the Additional Terms and Conditions and the corresponding clauses in the GeM Bid Documents bearing Bid Nos. GEM/2026/B/7170291 dated 30.01.2026 and GEM/2026/B/7263566 dated 19.02.2026.
******* It is contended that the impugned condition is ex facie arbitrary, disproportionate and lacking any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, particularly in view of the admitted position that the tender itself is structured as a multi-agency empanelment model wherein the total work is to be distributed amongst eight selected agencies, thereby reducing the actual per-agency annual work allocation to approximately ₹12-13 Crore. The petitioner has further assailed the turnover-linked evaluation mechanism, the reduction of Performance Bank Guarantee to 5%, and the alleged procedural 3 infirmity arising from non-enabling of the order-splitting functionality on the GeM portal, as being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and has accordingly prayed for issuance of appropriate writ(s) for quashment of the impugned conditions and for consequential directions to the respondents to rationalize the tender framework.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"In view of the facts and grounds stated hereinabove, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(i) issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside Clause 3.5 of the Additional Terms and Conditions (Annexure P/1-B), along with the corresponding financial eligibility condition incorporated in the initial GeM Bid Document (Annexure P/1-A) and the finalized GeM Bid Document (Annexure P/1-C), to the extent the same mandates an average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore for participation in the impugned tender process;
4
(ii) issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the turnover- linked component of the scoring/evaluation matrix in the impugned tender, to the extent it accords escalating marks on the basis of turnover slabs in a manner disproportionate to the actual per-agency work allocation contemplated under the tender;
(iii) issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the condition contained in the GeM Bid Document (Annexure P/1-C) that fixes the ePBG at 5.00%, and direct the Respondents to restore the standard bank guarantee requirement in the interest of the public exchequer;
(iv) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to rectify the procedural defect arising from non-activation of the Order Splitting functionality on the GeM portal, and to restructure the tender accordingly by either 5 enabling order by re-floating the tender in a technically compliant manner.
(v) in the alternative, issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to forthwith reconsider and rationalize the impugned financial eligibility criteria and the turnover-linked scoring mechanism, and to issue an appropriate corrigendum in accordance with the principles of fairness, proportionality, and equal opportunity in public procurement, keeping in view the actual per-agency work allocation under the tender structure;
(vi) issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to extend the bid submission deadline for a reasonable period after issuance of the corrigendum, so as to ensure wider participation and a genuine level playing field;
(vii) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in 6 the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of the present petition."
3. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioner, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged, inter alia, in the business of providing manpower, security services and allied personnel. The petitioner is duly compliant with all statutory requirements, including registration under GST, EPF, ESIC and possession of a valid labour licence, and has been carrying on such activities for several years. The present writ petition has been instituted through its duly authorized State Representative.
******* The petitioner has an established track record of rendering services to respondent No.2-Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL). The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation dates back to earlier contractual engagements, initially valid up to 31.03.2018 and thereafter extended till 30.06.2019. Subsequently, the respondents continued to repose confidence in the petitioner by issuing successive work orders for security and manpower services for the financial years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, followed by further work orders for the period 01.10.2023 to 31.03.2024. It is the specific case of the petitioner that its services have at all times been found satisfactory and no adverse material has ever been recorded against it.
******* The cause of action for filing the present petition arose when the respondents initiated a fresh procurement process through the 7 Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal for empanelment of agencies for supply of manpower. The initial GeM Bid Document dated 30.01.2026 prescribed, inter alia, a minimum average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore for the preceding three financial years as an essential eligibility condition. The said condition was reiterated in the detailed tender document / Additional Terms and Conditions dated 19.02.2026. ******* It is not in dispute that the total estimated value of the tender for a period of three years is approximately ₹301.65 Crore. The tender structure further provides that the respondents intend to empanel eight agencies and distribute the work amongst them. On a plain reading of the tender conditions, the actual work allocation per agency would therefore come to approximately ₹37-38 Crore for the entire three-year period, i.e., about ₹12-13 Crore per annum.
******* According to the petitioner, the prescription of a turnover requirement of ₹300 Crore is wholly disproportionate to the actual scale of work to be executed by an individual agency and operates as an unreasonable barrier to participation. The petitioner asserts that in a similar tender floated by the respondents in the year 2024, an average annual turnover of ₹50 Crore was considered adequate for substantially similar services, and the sudden escalation to ₹300 Crore, without any corresponding change in the nature or volume of work, is arbitrary. ******* Aggrieved by the said condition, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 18.02.2026 before the respondents, pointing out the inherent inconsistency and requesting rationalization of the eligibility criteria. However, no corrective action was taken by the 8 respondents. It is further the case of the petitioner that even after issuance of the impugned tender, the respondents themselves issued an Experience Certificate dated 25.02.2026 certifying the petitioner's satisfactory performance for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2026, thereby acknowledging its competence and reliability. ******* The petitioner has also challenged certain ancillary aspects of the tender process, including the turnover-linked evaluation mechanism which accords higher marks for higher turnover slabs, the reduction of the Performance Bank Guarantee to 5%, and the alleged procedural defect arising from non-enabling of the "Order Splitting" functionality on the GeM portal, despite the tender being structured as a multi-agency empanelment model. Left with no alternative and asserting that the impugned conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of constitutional guarantees, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned tender condition prescribing a minimum average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore is ex facie arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it bears no reasonable nexus with the nature and scale of work. It is contended that the procurement is structured as a multi-agency empanelment, wherein the total estimated contract value of ₹301.65 Crore over three years is to be distributed amongst eight agencies, effectively reducing the per-agency allocation to about ₹12-13 Crore per annum. In such circumstances, the insistence on a ₹300 Crore turnover is wholly disproportionate. The condition is further 9 assailed as an artificial and exclusionary barrier that restricts fair competition, eliminates otherwise competent bidders, and infringes the petitioner's right under Article 19(1)(g).
******* It is further contended that the impugned stipulation marks an unexplained departure from the respondents' previous tender conditions, wherein an average annual turnover of ₹50 Crore was considered sufficient for similar services. The abrupt escalation to ₹300 Crore, without any corresponding increase in complexity or scale of work, demonstrates non-application of mind and renders the condition manifestly arbitrary. The arbitrariness is compounded by the evaluation mechanism, which disproportionately rewards higher turnover slabs, thereby favouring large entities over actual capability and experience. Reliance is also placed on the Experience Certificate dated 25.02.2026 issued by the respondents, evidencing that the petitioner has satisfactorily executed similar assignments from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2026, thereby establishing its operational competence. ******* Learned counsel further submits that the tender process is vitiated by arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power, as the respondents have imposed an onerous turnover condition while simultaneously reducing the Performance Bank Guarantee to 5%, thereby diluting financial safeguards. Additionally, the failure to enable "Order Splitting" on the GeM portal, despite adopting a multi-agency empanelment model, creates a structural inconsistency that undermines transparency and fairness. It is argued that although the State enjoys discretion in prescribing eligibility criteria, such discretion 10 is subject to constitutional limitations, and where conditions are arbitrary, disproportionate, or lacking rational nexus, interference under Article 226 is warranted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned condition and evaluation mechanism be quashed and appropriate directions be issued to rationalize the tender to ensure fairness, transparency, and wider participation.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State opposes the writ petition at the outset, submitting that it is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed in limine, as it seeks to challenge a policy decision relating to tender conditions, which lies within the exclusive domain of the procuring authority. It is contended that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is extremely limited, and the Court does not sit as an appellate authority to examine the desirability of tender conditions. The State is entitled to prescribe eligibility criteria, including financial thresholds, having regard to the nature, magnitude, and administrative requirements of the contract, and interference is warranted only where the conditions are manifestly arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of statutory provisions.
******* It is further submitted that the prescription of a minimum average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore is a conscious policy decision aimed at ensuring participation of financially sound and capable entities, particularly in view of the total estimated contract value of ₹301.65 Crore over three years. The requirement is stated to be essential for safeguarding uninterrupted service delivery, ensuring compliance with statutory obligations, and mitigating operational and financial risks. The 11 petitioner's reliance on division of work amongst multiple agencies is termed misconceived, as empanelment does not dilute the need for financial resilience. It is argued that fixation of eligibility criteria and evaluation parameters falls within the commercial wisdom of the procuring authority, and mere inconvenience or exclusion of the petitioner does not render such conditions arbitrary. ******* Learned counsel further submits that there is no vested right in favour of the petitioner to participate in a tender on its own terms, and exclusion on account of non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria does not by itself confer a cause of action. The alleged deviation from earlier tender conditions is also refuted on the ground that each tender is an independent process, and the State is entitled to revise criteria based on evolving requirements and risk assessment. The challenge to the evaluation mechanism, Performance Bank Guarantee, and the issue of "Order Splitting" on the GeM portal is likewise stated to be misconceived, as these aspects fall within administrative discretion and do not vitiate the tender. It is thus contended that no case of arbitrariness, mala fide, or constitutional violation is made out, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed both on preliminary grounds and on merits. It is contended that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches, as the impugned tender was issued on 19.02.2026, whereas the petitioner approached this Court only on 10.03.2026, just two days prior to the last date for 12 submission of bids, thereby disrupting the procurement process. It is further submitted that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal has not been impleaded, and also suffers from non-challenge to the governing policy, namely the Manual for Procurement of Non-Consultancy Services, 2025, which forms the basis of the impugned condition. ******* It is further contended that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is extremely limited, and reliance is placed on Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 489 and Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd, (2022) 17 SCC 188 to submit that interference is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or mala fide. The prescription of a minimum average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore is stated to be in consonance with Clause 5.1.9 of the applicable procurement manual, which permits fixation of financial capacity between 3 to 7 times the estimated annual cost of approximately ₹100 Crore. It is further submitted that the present tender is a consolidated state-wide tender, unlike earlier zone-based tenders, and therefore comparison with past conditions is misplaced. The petitioner's assumption regarding equal distribution of work is also refuted, as allocation is conditional upon L-1 price matching and not automatic. ******* Learned counsel further submits that the condition is not exclusionary, as out of 148 bids received, 21 bidders satisfied the ₹300 Crore turnover requirement, demonstrating adequate competition. It is argued that the evaluation matrix, including turnover-based scoring and fixation of Performance Bank Guarantee at 5%, falls within the 13 commercial wisdom of the procuring authority and does not suffer from any illegality. The alleged procedural defect regarding "Order Splitting"
on the GeM portal is also denied, stating that allocation is governed administratively under the tender conditions. It is further submitted that issuance of an experience certificate does not confer any vested right to participate in future tenders. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned conditions are based on statutory guidelines and sound administrative reasoning, and the petition, being belated and untenable, deserves to be dismissed with costs.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submits that the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is evasive, self-contradictory, and fails to address the core issue of disproportionality. It is contended that despite a specific direction of this Court to respond to Ground No. 9.2, no cogent reply has been furnished. The respondents' stand denying the multi-agency nature of the tender is untenable, as their own reliance on Clauses 10.3.3 and 10.4 clearly contemplates empanelment of multiple bidders and allocation of work. This internal inconsistency, it is argued, goes to the root of the matter, as the justification for the ₹300 Crore turnover condition is premised on a contrary assumption. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed to address the constitutional issue of whether the impugned condition creates an artificial barrier, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), and have not demonstrated any rational nexus or proportionality. Reliance is placed on Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 1182) to contend that such exclusionary conditions warrant judicial interference.
14******* It is further submitted that the conduct of the respondents reflects lack of bona fides, as the petitioner was disqualified during the pendency of the writ petition solely on the basis of the impugned condition, despite the matter being sub judice. The objection of delay and laches is also refuted, stating that the petitioner had submitted a pre-litigation representation and approached this Court prior to opening of bids, whereas the respondents themselves failed to respond in a timely manner. It is thus contended that the impugned condition is arbitrary, disproportionate, and operates as an artificial barrier stifling competition. In view thereof, learned counsel reiterates that the impugned tender condition deserves to be set aside and appropriate directions be issued to ensure a fair, transparent, and competitive procurement process.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also gone through the entire records of the case with utmost circumspection.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, this Court finds that the principal challenge in the present writ petition is to the financial eligibility condition prescribed in Clause 3.5 of the tender document, requiring a minimum average annual turnover of ₹300 Crore, along with the connected evaluation mechanism and other ancillary conditions.
10. At the outset, it is well settled that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to tender conditions is extremely limited. The Hon'ble Supreme 15 Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, has authoritatively held that the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions in contractual matters and can only examine the decision-making process. In para 94, it has been observed:
"The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: (1) Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? (2) committed an error of law, (3) committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, (4) reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached, or (5) abused its powers."
11. Further, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned against interference in tender matters unless the action is arbitrary or mala fide. In para 22, it is held:
"If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere... even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out."16
12. Similarly, in Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle of restraint and held in para 20:
"The courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable... The authority which floats the tender... is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted."
13. In the present case, the respondents have justified the impugned turnover condition by placing reliance on the applicable procurement framework, particularly the Manual for Procurement of Non- Consultancy Services, 2025, which prescribes that the financial capability may be fixed at a multiple of the estimated annual contract value. It is not in dispute that the estimated annual value of the contract is approximately ₹100 Crore, and the requirement of ₹300 Crore turnover corresponds to three times the annual value, which falls within the prescribed range.
14. The contention of the petitioner that the tender is necessarily a multi-
agency model resulting in division of work amongst eight agencies, thereby reducing the per-agency value, cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. A perusal of the tender conditions, particularly Clause 10.3.3 and 10.3.4, demonstrates that allocation of work to multiple bidders is contingent upon price matching with the L-1 bidder and is not automatic. Thus, the respondents cannot be faulted for 17 adopting a conservative approach in prescribing financial eligibility criteria to ensure capacity, continuity and financial stability in execution of a State-wide contract.
15. Further, the argument of arbitrariness on the ground of deviation from earlier tender conditions is also untenable. It is settled law that each tender is an independent process and the State is entitled to revise its eligibility conditions based on administrative exigencies and policy considerations. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 23:
"The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned... but at the same time they are entitled to prescribe the conditions for eligibility... and the courts will not interfere unless the action of the State is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide."
16. In the facts of the present case, this Court does not find that the impugned condition is so arbitrary or irrational that no reasonable authority would have imposed it. The condition applies uniformly to all bidders, and a substantial number of bidders have, in fact, participated in the tender process, which negates the allegation of exclusionary intent.
18
17. "The State Government, vide notification dated 11.07.2024, has issued a direction that all government purchases shall be made through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM). By the said notification, the Chhattisgarh State Bhandar Karya Niyam, 2002 has been amended by inserting sub-rule 3.1, which reads as under:"
उपनियम 3.1 (3.1.1) राज्य शासन के समस्त विभाग / क्रे ता कार्यालय / अधीनस्थ संस्थाएं अपनी आवश्यकतानुसार सामग्री, वस्तुएं एवं सेवाएं जिनकी दरें एवं विशिष्टियां भारत सरकार के डीजीएसएण्डडी की जेम वेबसाईट (GeM- Government e-Marketplace) में उपलब्ध हों, का क्रय जेम वेबसाईट से उनकी नियमावली, निर्धारित प्रक्रिया का पालन करते हुये क्रय करेंगे, किन्तु ऐसे क्रय के लिये विभाग / क्रे ता कार्यालय / अधीनस्थ संस्थाएं जेम वेबसाईट में संबंधित सामग्री की तकनीकी स्पेसिफिके शन (Technical Specification) का परीक्षण, विक्रे ता की साख एवं एल-1 मूल्य, आदि का निर्धारण स्वयं करेगा। विभाग / क्रे ता कार्यालय / अधीनस्थ संस्था की यह भी जिम्मेदारी होगी कि वह शासकीय कोष की मितव्ययता एवं क्रय की जा रही सामग्री की गुणवत्ता सुनिश्चित करेगा। यदि राज्य शासन का कोई विभाग / क्रे ता कार्यालय / अधीनस्थ संस्था इस प्रावधान से परे, इस नियमावली के नियम 4 में वर्णित प्रावधान के अनुरूप निविदा प्रणाली के माध्यम से सामग्री, वस्तुएं एवं सेवाएं का क्रय करना चाहे तो वे निविदा के माध्यम से सामग्री, वस्तुएं एवं सेवाएं क्रय कर सकें गे किं तु ऐसा करने से पूर्व उन्हें संबंधित प्रशासकीय विभाग के माध्यम से वित्त विभाग से लिखित सहमति प्राप्त करनी होगी।
(3.1.2) ऐसी सामग्री, वस्तुएं एवं सेवाएं जिनकी दरें एवं विशिष्टियां भारत सरकार के डीजीएसएण्डडी की जेम वेबसाईट (GeM- Government e-Marketplace) में उपलब्ध नहीं हों, तथा यदि ऐसी सामग्री, वस्तुएं एवं सेवाएं की दरें एवं विशिष्टियां यदि परिशिष्ट-1 में की 19 ऐसी वस्तुएं "छत्तीसगढ़ स्टेट इण्डस्ट्रि यल डेवलपमेन्ट कार्पोरेशन (सीएसआईडीसी)" द्वारा संचालित "ई-मानक पोर्टल" पर उपलब्ध हों एवं परिशिष्ट-2 की ऐसी वस्तुएं छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य बीज एवं कृ षि विकास निगम लिमिटेड की दरें उपलब्ध हों, तो ऐसी सामग्री, वस्तुएं एवं सेवाओं का क्रय राज्य शासन के सभी विभाग / क्रे ता कार्यालय / अधीनस्थ संस्थाओं द्वारा उपरोक्त संस्थाओं के माध्यम से किया जा सके गा।
(3.1.3) ऐसी सामग्री, वस्तुएं एवं सेवाएं जिनकी दरें एवं विशिष्टियां (3.1.1) एवं (3.1.2) के माध्यम से उपलब्ध नहीं हो उनका क्रय राज्य शासन के समस्त विभाग / क्रे ता कार्यालय / अधीनस्थ संस्थाएं इस नियमावली के नियम 4 में वर्णित प्रावधानों के अनुरूप निविदा प्रणाली के माध्यम से कर सकें गे।
(तीन) नियमावली के वर्तमान उपनियम 3.3 को 3.4 के रूप में प्रतिस्थापित करते हुए निम्नलिखित अनुसार संशोधित किया जाता है, :-
"3.4 - ऐसी सामग्री, वस्तुएं एवं सेवाएं जो उपनियम-3.1, उपनियम-3.2 (यथासंशोधित) में वर्णित परिशिष्ट-1 एवं उपनियम-3.3 (यथासंशोधित) में वर्णित परिशिष्ट-2 में वर्णित नहीं है, उनका क्रय राज्य शासन के समस्त विभाग / क्रे ता कार्यालय / अधीनस्थ संस्थाएं नियम-4 में उल्लेखित प्रक्रिया के अनुसरण में क्रय कर सकें गे।"
(चार) नियमावली के वर्तमान उपनियम 4.3.3 खुली निविदा पद्धति में वर्णित प्रथम पैरा को निम्नलिखित अनुसार संशोधित किया जाता है:-
उपनियम-4.3.3 खुली निविदा पद्धति :-
(अ) इस पद्धति में हमेशा लोक विज्ञापन द्वारा नियमानुसार खुली निविदायें बुलाकर करना चाहिये। निविदा आमंत्रित करने हेतु निविदा 20 के अनुमानित मूल्य के आधार पर निम्नानुसार लोक विज्ञापन किया जावे :-
रु. 3,00,001 से 5.00 लाख तक हो, स्थानीय स्तर के बहुप्रचारित एक समाचार पत्र में।
रु. 5.00 लाख से अधिक तथा रु. 10.00 लाख तक हो, प्रदेश स्तरीय बहुप्रचारित दो समाचार पत्रों में। रु. 10.00 लाख से अधिक तथा रु. 20.00 लाख तक हो, प्रदेश स्तरीय बहुप्रचारित दो समाचार पत्रों में तथा राष्ट्रीय स्तर के एक समाचार पत्र में।
रु. 20.00 लाख से अधिक, प्रदेश स्तरीय बहुप्रचारित दो समाचार पत्रों में तथा राष्ट्रीय स्तर के दो समाचार पत्रों में। उपरोक्त व्यवस्था अंतर्गत निविदा बुलाने की प्रक्रिया इंटरनेट के माध्यम से की जा सके गी।
(ब) के न्द्रीय क्षेत्रीय/के न्द्र प्रवर्तित योजनाओं के अंतर्गत क्रय के मामलों में संबंधित योजना में भारत सरकार द्वारा निर्देशित क्रय की निर्धारित / उल्लेखित प्रक्रिया होने पर उसका पालन किया जा सके गा। (स) ऐसी वस्तुयें जिनकी दर एवं विशिष्टियां भारत सरकार के डीजीएसएण्डडी की जेम वेबसाईट में उपलब्ध हो, का क्रय उक्त खुली निविदा पद्धति या जेम पर उपलब्ध बिडिंग प्रक्रियाएं यथा डायरेक्ट परचेस, एल-1, ई-बिडिंग (E-bidding) तथा रिवर्स आक्शन (Reverse auction) पद्धति के तहत आवश्यकता अनुसार क्रय कर सके गा।
परन्तु, जेम पोर्टल के माध्यम से सामग्री का क्रय किये जाने की स्थिति में सामग्री प्राप्त हो जाने के 48 घण्टे के भीतर क्रे ता को Provisional Receipt Certificate (PRC) जारी किया जाना 21 आवश्यक होगा। प्राप्त सामग्री का सत्यापन किये जाने के उपरांत Consignee Receipt Acceptance Certificate (CRAC) जारी की जायेगी। यह PRC जारी करने की दिनांक से 10 दिनों के अन्दर जारी किया जाना आवश्यक होगा। CRAC जारी होने की दिनांक से 10 दिनों के भीतर सामग्री का भुगतान क्रे ता द्वारा किया जाना आवश्यक होगा अथवा जेम के प्रभावशील दिशा-निर्देशों का पालन किया जाना आवश्यक होगा।
(द) खुली निविदा पद्धति में प्रथम बार आमंत्रित निविदाओं में दरों की पर्याप्त प्रतिस्पर्धा एवं तुलना सुनिश्चित किये जाने के लिए यह आवश्यक होगा कि कम से कम तीन मूल निर्माताओं की ओर से निर्माता अथवा उनके अधिकृ त प्रतिनिधि द्वारा निविदा में हिस्सा लिया जा कर न्यूनतम तीन पात्र निविदाकारों का होना सुनिश्चित किया जाना होगा।
(इ) सुरक्षा संबंधी उपकरणों, वस्तुओं / सामग्री जिनमें एकल निर्माता से क्रय की स्थिति है, ऐसी वस्तुओं के क्रय हेतु गृह विभाग को नियमावली की कं डिका-4.3.3 के पालन से छू ट प्रदान की जाती है। ऐसी सामग्रियों का क्रय गृह विभाग द्वारा विभागीय प्रशासकीय अनुमोदन के पश्चात् स्वयं के स्तर पर प्रक्रिया पूर्ण कर किया जा सके गा।
(पांच) वर्तमान में प्रचलित सीएसआईडीसी एवं छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य बीज विकास निगम के समस्त रेट कान्ट्रेक्ट इस माह के अंत (31 जुलाई, 2024) तक समाप्त किया जाये।
(छ) उपरोक्त सभी संशोधन इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की दिनांक से प्रभावशील होंगे।"
18. Sub-clause 2(c) of Clause 5.1.9 of the Manual for Procurement of Non-
consultancy Services, 2025, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, provides for the 22 financial capability with respect to the qualification criteria, which reads as under:
"c) Financial Capability:
i) Average Annual gross billing during the last three years, ending 31st March of the previous financial year, should be at least 3 times (for 1-3 years contracts) to 7 times (for contracts longer than 3 years) the estimated annual cost - as far as feasible based on the nature of service and market condition.
Generally, the financial capability required in Non- consultancy services as a multiple of annual Tender value should be higher than the multiple in works because the service provider has to sustain the services over a long period of time.
That is why a multiple of 3 to 7 is mentioned above.
ii) Liquid assets and/or credit facilities, net of other contractual commitments and exclusive of any advance payments which may be made under the Contract, of no less than the amount specified in the Tender Document."
23
19. When a mechanism has been prescribed for procurement of non-
consultancy services through the GeM portal, the procuring agency is required to comply with the instructions issued in that regard. Under the applicable guidelines, the financial eligibility criterion stipulates that the average annual gross billing of a bidder should be in the range of three to seven times of the estimated annual cost. In the present case, as per the tender, the estimated annual cost is Rs. 1,00,55,12,405.33, and by adopting the lower threshold of three times, the NIT prescribes the corresponding financial requirement. In the opinion of this Court, such a stipulation cannot be said to be arbitrary.
20. So far as the challenge to the evaluation criteria, performance bank guarantee and procedural aspects of GeM portal are concerned, the same fall within the domain of administrative and commercial discretion of the procuring authority. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate mala fides, favouritism or perversity in the decision- making process.
21. In view of the foregoing analysis and in light of the settled legal position governing judicial review of tender conditions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned tender conditions cannot be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory or lacking in rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
24
22. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved