Tender conditions for TASMAC bars upheld as rational pricing based on sales turnover and district-specific conditions.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to cases of mala fides, bias, arbitrariness or irrationality, and the challenge to the TASMAC bar tender conditions failed on that standard. The Court accepted fixation of the upset price and monthly licence fee by reference to the retail shop's sales turnover as having a rational commercial basis, since the bar was only an adjunct facility for liquor purchasers. It also held that the percentage-based formula was not static because it adjusted with monthly sales, and that the differential treatment for Nilgiris District was supported by prevailing conditions. No mala fides, bias or Article 14 violation was shown.
Issues: Challenge to the tender conditions fixing the upset price and monthly licence fee for bars attached to TASMAC retail vending shops on the grounds of arbitrariness, irrationality, discrimination, and non-compliance with the tender framework.
Analysis: The scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited, and interference is warranted only where the conditions are shown to be mala fide, biased, arbitrary, or irrational. The fixation of the upset price by reference to the sales turnover of the attached retail vending shop was held to have a reasonable commercial basis, because the bar is only an adjunct facility for consumers purchasing liquor from the shop and not an independent liquor vending unit. The Court found that the percentage-based formula was not static, that it adjusted with monthly sales, and that the differential treatment for Nilgiris District had a rational basis supported by prevailing conditions. No mala fides or bias was established, and the petitioners failed to show infringement of Article 14.
Conclusion: The tender conditions were neither arbitrary nor irrational, and the challenge to the impugned notifications failed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
