Telangana High Court
Vishal Poultry Farm And Feeds vs The State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION Nos.11071 and 11399 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis in these writ petitions is similar in nature, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2.1. W.P.No.11071 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing Tender No.585922 dated 30.03.2025, more particularly eligibility condition No.2.2 and 2.12, for supply of Eggs (hen) and the consequential Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, changing the tender qualifying conditions just before few days of last date for submission of Tender, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass..."
2.2. W.P.No.11399 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring Tender Reference No.1074/WDCW/ AL&SNP/EGGS/I/2025 dated 30.03.2025 and subsequent Clause 2.12 of the Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, issued Respondent No. 2, as arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950, whereby insofar as it mandates submission of a certificate of grading issued prior to the date of publication of the tender, and consequently quash the said Tender Reference No. 1074/WDCW/AL&SNP/EGGS/I2025 dated 30.03.2025 and subsequent clause 2.12 of corrigendum dated 08.04.2025 in its entirety and further direct the Respondents to suitably modify the Tender conditions to enable fair and equal participation and pass..."2
PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
3. Heard Sri E. Madan Moahn Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11071 of 2025.
Sri V.R. Avula, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11399 of 2025.
Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, representing learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions.
4. Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11071 of 2025, submitted that the petitioners are farmers and they are in the business of poultry farm, including the activity of procurement of Eggs. While so, respondent No.2 floated a State-level Zonal Tender, vide Tender No.585922 dated 30.03.2025, for procurement and supply of Eggs (Hen) as per the AGMARK certification and other specifications mentioned therein, for a period of one year (April 2025 to March 2026), for supply to the beneficiaries under the Arogya Lakshmi Program and Supplementary Nutrition Program for Zones-I to VII (except Hyderabad District), and the delivery of Eggs was to all the Anganwadi Centres under the Department of Women 3 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 Development and Child Welfare in the State of Telangana. It was further submitted that the last date for submission of the bid was 10.04.2025. While the things thus, respondent No.2 issued a Corrigendum on 08.04.2025, duly extending the last date for submission of online bids until 15.04.2025, and the eligibility/tender qualifying conditions have been substantially changed just before the last date of submission of tenders.
5. It was further submitted that as per the qualifying condition number 2.2 of the tender dated 30.03.2025, the tenderer should supply the Eggs (Hen) as per the AGMARK certificate of authorization for Eggs (Hen) valid for at least two years prior to the bid submission date, which was done only to favour some of the tenderers. Further, as per clause 2.12 of Corrigendum, AGMARK certificate should have been issued prior to the date of issuance of the tender and the said Corrigendum has been issued only to eliminate many participants like the petitioners, with a view to favour those who have obtained the said certificate prior to the issuance of the tender. There is no logic, reasoning or justification for restricting the participants who have obtained the AGMARK certificate after the issuance of the tender, hence, the same is arbitrary, effected biases and tainted with mala fides.
4
PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
6. It was further submitted that the Corrigendum, though deletes that condition of having the AGMARK replica serial number, specification to submit the AGMARK certification is nothing but retaining the original condition of having the AGMARK certificate, and the said condition has been imposed only to favour the eight persons who have obtained the AGMARK replica serial number prior to insurance of the tender, which condition has been prescribed in connivance with the said eight eligible persons. Further, the Corrigendum for tender condition, i.e., Clause 2.12, eliminating or deleting the condition for obtaining the AGMARK certificate from the District Agricultural Marketing Officer is arbitrary, and the said condition has been prescribed only to eliminate the petitioner and other genuine tenderers. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel for these petitioners prayed this Court to set aside the tender conditions, more particularly, condition Nos.2 and 2.12. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others 1 and Gas Authority of India Limited v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited and others 2.
1 AIR 1979 SC 1628 2 (2023) 3 SCC 629 5 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
7. Sri V.R. Avula, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11399 of 2025, submitted that the petitioners herein possess all the necessary qualifications, infrastructure, technical capacity and supply capabilities required to participate in the tender process. The petitioners herein are established poultry farmers engaged in supplying quality Eggs on a large scale and have also applied for AGMARK replica serial numbers, which is a mandatory step before obtaining the Certificate of Grading under the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act and Rules. It was further submitted that the requirement of submission of a certificate of grading dated prior to the issuance of the tender is legally and practically impossible, as no such certificate can be obtained without the allotment of an AGMARK replica serial number, which in itself is cumbersome and a time taking process. Furthermore, the Corrigendum removed the original requirement to furnish the replica number, while paradoxically insisting on the certificate that is contingent on it. This clause unfairly restricts participation to only those who already possess such a certificate, excluding otherwise capable and qualified suppliers, who are technically and logistically capable of supplying Eggs as per the AGMARK standards but could not have secured a certificate in advance of the tender notice. Therefore, by creating a classification that discriminates new or first- 6
PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 time bidders or prospective bidders, the Corrigendum clause fails the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no rational nexus between the objective of ensuring quality AGMARK certified supply and insisting on retrospective possession of the certificate. Further, the Corrigendum fails to specify how a tenderer can obtain a valid certificate of grading without the AGMARK replica serial number. This lack of clarity results in procedural ambiguity, denying potential bidders a fair opportunity to participate in the tender.
8. It was further submitted that the Corrigendum to Clause 2.12 is not merely arbitrary, but also maliciously designed to favour a select few, thereby, defeating the core principles of fairness and competition in public procurement. Out of almost 800 poultry farmers in the State of Telangana, only 8 possess the AGMARK replica serial number, which is a prerequisite for obtaining the certificate of grading as per AGMARK specifications. It was further submitted that out of these 8, 6 poultry farmers have already participated in the previous tender and were declared successful, and it is these 6 participants who appear to have influenced the tendering authority to introduce the present Corrigendum clause, with a clear intention to exclude the petitioners and all other eligible poultry farmers, despite their technical capability. The removal of the clause requiring the AGMARK replica serial number 7 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 from Clause 3, combined with the retrospective requirement of an AGMARK certificate of grading, is a deliberate act of manipulation designed to create an artificial eligibility barrier, ensuring that only those 6-8 suppliers can qualify. This clearly violates the principles of fair play, level playing field and equal opportunity in public tenders, and is tainted with bias and malafides. Such restrictive and targeted tender conditions are a colourable exercise of power and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the conditions introduced through the Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025 are specifically tailor-made with a malafide intent by the respondents, with the objective of excluding the vast majority of poultry farmers in Telangana and favouring a small cartel of 6-8 suppliers, who have already been supplying Eggs under the previous tenders. It was further submitted that the 2022-Tender permitted the certificate of grading to be obtained from the District Marketing Officer or any authorized person under the Act. However, the 2025-Tender conditions restrict issuance of certificate of grading only to the Director of Marketing and Inspection or authorized person, and mandates that such certificate must be dated prior to the publication of the tender, which is highly arbitrary. This constant shifting of tender conditions from year to year, without any rational 8 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 basis or uniform policy, reflects a clear attempt to manipulate eligibility criteria to favour a closed group of suppliers while denying fair opportunity to all others. Such conduct runs contrary to the fundamental principles of fair play and competitive public procurement.
10. It was further submitted that the present tender dated 30.03.2025 was initially notified on 29.03.2025 and was subsequently modified through a Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025. As per the tender schedule, the last date for submission of bids is 15.04.2025, effectively giving the petitioners only 7 days from the date of the Corrigendum to comply with the revised eligibility criteria and submit their tender applications. Out of these 7 days, only two were working days, owing to public holidays and weekends. This left the petitioners with grossly insufficient time to complete the formalities, including procuring the certificate of grading from the competent authority, collecting other required documents and clearances and completing the online/offline submission process as per tender norms.
11. It was further submitted that W.P.No.43886 of 2022 and other connected matters were filed before this Court challenging Tender Reference No.3347/SNP/2022 dated 21.11.2022, issued by Respondent No.2, but these writ petitions and a subsequently writ appeal vide W.A.No.185 of 2023, were dismissed, primarily on the ground that there 9 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 were no procedural irregularities or violation of tender conditions at that point of time. However, the present challenge relates to a new Corrigendum which has substantially altered the tender conditions, particularly Clause 2.12, in a manner that is exclusionary, arbitrary, and mala fide, as detailed in the previous grounds. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel prayed this Court to set aside the tender dated 30.03.2025 and the subsequent clauses issued in the Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, with a direction to the respondents to modify the tender conditions. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries 3.
12. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that both writ petitions are misconceived, devoid of merits, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It was contended that the allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, and mala fides in framing the tender conditions are baseless and unsubstantiated. It was submitted that Department has notified a state-level Zonal Tender, which pertains to supply of AGMARK-graded Eggs to the highly sensitive beneficiaries, i.e., children aged between 7 months and 6 years, and pregnant and lactating women, under the Supplementary Nutrition 3 (1993) 1 SCC 71 10 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 Program and the Arogya Lakshmi Scheme. Hence, the strictest quality control and prior grading experience is justified. The said Tender was floated through e-procurement portal of the Government of Telangana on 30.03.2025, duly notifying the last date for submission of bid as 10.04.2025. Subsequently, a Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025 was issued, duly extending the period for closing of bid submission until 15.05.2025.
13. It was further submitted that the petitioners' claims of mala fide are unsubstantiated and speculative, and that only to ensure the state- wide participation, the Department, duly adhering to the standards given to the sensitive nature of the beneficiaries, issued the Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025. The said Corrigendum did not introduce any arbitrary or exclusionary conditions, rather, it relaxed the original tender clause by removing the requirement of AGMARK certification for a continuous period of two years, and permitted submission of a valid AGMARK certificate as on the date of issuance of the tender, thereby, widening the pool of eligible bidders. The specification for insisting upon the certificate of grading prior to the issuance of the tender was to allow the suppliers with proven capacity, infrastructure, compliance and experience in the supply of graded Eggs, given the sensitive nature of the beneficiaries, and any compromise on 11 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 these standards would defeat the very purpose of the program and pose serious public health risks.
14. It was further submitted that the 2022-Tender provisionally permitted certificates either from the District Marketing Officers or the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection or authorized person, which was in the form of a transitional measure during AGMARK certification implementation. However, considering the infrastructural facilities, the current 2025-Tender mandates the certificates from the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection (the statutory authority under the AGMARK Act). As such, there is no change of condition, rather, the Department specifically insisted for certificate of grading of Eggs for ensuring the quality of Eggs supplied to the Anganwadi Centres. Further, the removal of the explicit requirement for submission of the replica serial number did not eliminate the need for a certificate of grading, as the said certificate necessitates the compliance of the underlying procedural steps including the issuance of replica. Thus, the Corrigendum clarified that experience in grading remains an essential eligibility criterion under Clause 2.12, aligning with the objective of ensuring consistent quality and reliability of Eggs supplied to Anganwadi Centres.
15. It was further contended that the requirement for submission of a valid certificate of grading is neither arbitrary nor impossible, as the 12 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 firms which have already obtained a license two years ago, would have taken up the process for obtaining the same, clearly involving the procurement of AGMARK replica serial number, certificate of grading from the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection or an authorized person of Marketing and Inspection. Thus, the said condition is clearly achievable and, the Firms obtaining an AGMARK license in 2022 would have done grading of Eggs at any time. However, the petitioners have not chosen to pursue grading of Eggs for the reasons best known to them. The Department has consistently maintained the grading requirement since 2022, and the same was implemented based on the recommendation of the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, the statutory authority under the AGMARK Act. It was also submitted that two the petitioners in W.P.No.11399 of 2025 have already participated in the earlier 2022-Tender, and they were fully aware of the terms and conditions on AGMARK certification and grading. However, despite the same, they failed to pursue grading of their Eggs in the last two years, due to which, they would not be eligible to the present tender.
16. It was further submitted that the tender conditions were framed in the public interest, with an objective of selecting the suppliers, who possess the proven capacity, infrastructure, regulatory compliance, and grading experience. However, the petitioners' inability to qualify under 13 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 these conditions is purely due to their own shortcomings and due to any alleged illegality or mala fide intent on the part of the respondents. It is once again submitted that the quality of Eggs is of paramount importance and any deviation of the standards would defeat the very purpose of the programs and pose a serious risk to public health Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petitions. In support of his submissions/contentions, the learned Advocate General relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and another 4 and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nomula Poultry Farm v. State of Telangana and others 5.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the present writ petitions revolve around the validity and reasonableness of the tender conditions, specifically Clauses 2.2 and 2.12, framed under Tender Notification No.585922 dated 30.03.2025, which has been floated by the Department of Women Development and Child Welfare, for supply of Eggs (Hen) to beneficiaries under the Arogya Lakshmi Program and Supplementary Nutrition Program. It is relevant to refer the aforesaid conditions, which are extracted hereunder:
4 (2020) 16 SCC 489 5 2023 SCC OnLine TS 1241 14 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 "Clause 2.2: The tenderer should supply eggs (hen) as per AGMARK specifications as specified in Annexure - 1 of the tender document. The tenderer should possess AGMARK certificate of Authorization for eggs (hen), and the AGMARK Certificate valid for at least two years prior to the bid submission date. A copy of the valid AGMARK Certificate must be enclosed with the bid.
Clause 2.12: The tenderer should have technical capabilities for supply of eggs of at least 40% of tendered quantity of one month in a year in the particular zone, for last two financial years, including current year with AGMARK replica serial numbers and grading as per AGMARK specification and marking. In proof of this, the tenderer should submit a copy of certificate of grading issued by Director of Marketing and Inspection as per Agriculture Produce (Grading & Marketing) Act and Rules or authorized person of Marketing and Inspection."
18. Subsequently, a Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025 was issued, duly extending the last date for submission of bid, from 10.04.2025 to 15.04.2025, and in the said Corrigendum, tender condition Nos.2.2 and 2.12 were slightly modified, and the same are extracted hereunder:
"Corrigendum to clause 2.2: The tenderer should supply eggs (hen) as per AGMARK specifications as specified in Annexure-1 of the tender document. The tenderer should possess AGMARK Certificate of authorization for eggs (hen). AGMARK Certificate valid as on date should be enclosed with the bid.
Corrigendum to clause 2.12: The tenderer should have technical capabilities for supply of eggs of atleast 40% of tendered quantity in the particular zone as per AGMARK specification and marking. In proof of this, the tenderer should submit a copy of certificate of grading issued prior to the date of publishing the tender by Director of Marketing and Inspection as per Agriculture Produce (Grading & Marketing) Act and Rules or authorized person of Marketing and Inspection."
19. The petitioners herein challenge the aforesaid conditions on the ground that they are arbitrary, retrospective in effect, and were tailored- made to exclude the petitioners and otherwise eligible suppliers, 15 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 thereby, allegedly violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and thus, attributing mala fides on the part of the respondents. In this context, reliance had been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), wherein, it was held that in matters of awarding contracts, the public authorities must act fairly and without arbitrariness, in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, so as to ensure transparency and equal opportunity to all the participants. It was also held that the State cannot act arbitrarily or indulge in favoritism. The Hon'ble Apex Court struck down the award of contract to a party who did not meet the original eligibility conditions prescribed in the tender, holding that the authority had selectively relaxed the said conditions for the said party.
20. Similarly, in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the contractual clauses, which are found to be arbitrary, unfair, or discriminatory, can be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was also held that public procurement must be undertaken in a transparent and fair manner, and that any deviation from the established criteria, without a justification, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
21. In the present case, as can be seen from the record, there is no relaxation of a condition/conditions for an individual bidder. In fact, 16 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 even before the last date of submission of the bid, i.e., 10.04.2025, the Department issued a Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, extending the last date for submission of bid to 15.04.2025, duly relaxing the original mandatory requirement of possessing an AGMARK certificate, valid for at least two years prior to the submission of bid, and required the tenderers to possess only a valid certificate as on the date of issuance of the tender. As such, this modification broadens the eligibility criteria and increases the pool of tenderers. Hence, the said conditions cannot be construed as restrictive, exclusionary or tailor-made for an alleged cartel of suppliers. Therefore, the judgments in Ramana Dayaram Shetty and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case.
22. Further, in M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while the highest tenderer possesses no absolute right to acceptance, the State and its instrumentalities are bound by the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, and that the power to reject tenders must be exercised reasonably, based on valid justifications. It was also held that the said action must align with the constitutional mandate against arbitrary state action under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
17
PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
23. The said case revolves around the arbitrary rejection during post- bid evaluation. However, in the case on hand, the petitioners are challenging the pre-bid eligibility conditions, alleging arbitrariness. Therefore, the said judgment is also of no avail to the petitioners.
24. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that judicial review in tender matters is equivalent to judicial restraint in these matters. What is reviewed is not the decision itself but the manner in which it was made. A writ Court does not have the expertise to correct such decisions by substituting its own decision for the decision of the authority. This has clearly been held in Tata Cellular v. Union of India 6, at paragraph 94, which reads as under:
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative action. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. ... More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or 6 (1994) 6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11 18 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
(emphasis in original)
25. Further, the position of law has been succinctly summed up in Tata Cellular (supra), wherein, it was famously opined that:
"77. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under:
(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness, Procedural impropriety."
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra), has also categorically held that the power of judicial review in matters of government contracts and tenders is limited, and that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the evaluation process or the terms and conditions of a tender, unless there is an evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, bias, or procedural infirmity in the decision-making process. It was also held that the tender issuing 19 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 authority issuing is considered the best judge of its requirements. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty- bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.
20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.
...20
PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
25. That brings us to the most contentious issue as to whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the appellate orders were bad since they were without reasons. We must remember that we are dealing with purely administrative decisions. These are in the realm of contract. While rejecting the tender the person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons even if it be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. These decisions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. If reasons are to be given at every stage, then the commercial activities of the State would come to a grinding halt. The State must be given sufficient leeway in this regard. Respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to give reasons in the counter to the writ petition which they have done."
27. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Nomula Poultry Farm (supra), and the relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"35. We are in agreement with the contention of Mr. P. Sri. Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel that terms of the tender are within the realm of contract and it is not for the courts to lay down what should be the terms and conditions of a contract. This position has been well settled by the Supreme Court in TATA Cellular v. Union of India3 as well as in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka4 wherein Supreme Court has specifically held that court should not interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms would have been better. Learned Single Judge also noted that sufficient number of bids were received pursuant to the tender reference. Therefore, it was not that certain impossible conditions were insisted upon by the tendering authority. Merely because the conditions were perceived to be harsh on the appellants would not render the conditions to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Following the earlier decision of the Division Bench, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that it is not open for the appellants to question the terms and conditions of the tender. Therefore, he dismissed the writ petition. Though learned Single Judge did not specifically render a finding as to the second issue, we find that from paragraph 13 onwards of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, both the issues were simultaneously deliberated upon by the learned Single Judge. It is not that respondent No. 2 had made a deliberate deviation from the Government memo dated 09.12.2014 which laid down guidelines for procurement of eggs under Arogya Lakshmi and other programmes. Respondent No. 2 had examined the procedure followed during the last eight years in terms of the memo 21 PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 dated 09.12.2014 and after examining the same and the report of the team which had studied the best practices in other States submitted proposal to the State Government for a centralized tender system for procurement of eggs to ensure uniformity in quality. Respondent No. 2 had also proposed to allow egg traders to participate in the tendering, besides insisting upon quality certification like AGMARK. From the Government approval dated 13.10.2022, it is seen that the State Government did not accept the centralized tendering proposal. Instead the State Government directed that tender should be floated zone wise dividing the State into over all seven zones. Thus, instead of calling for tenders project wise, the decision was taken to float the tenders zone wise. Further, Government did not accept the recommendation of respondent No. 2 to allow egg traders to participate in the tender by limiting the tenderers only to poultry farmers of the State as per existing system. However, Government agreed that there should be quality specification of the supplied eggs including AGMARK certification.
36. We see no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the tender conditions insisted upon by respondent No. 2 in the tender reference dated 21.11.2022 to warrant interference."
28. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the requirement of a prior AGMARK certification and grading experience is a technical and policy decision that does not warrant interference of this Court. Further, as held supra, this Court finds no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned tender and its subsequent corrigendum. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present cases, and therefore, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
29. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. 22
PK, J W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025 Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 02.05.2025.
GSP