Tender eligibility conditions upheld: specialised experience requirements and application-volume criteria were not arbitrary under Article 14.

Article 14 review was available to a foreign company challenging tender conditions, but only on grounds of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, because Article 19(1)(g) is confined to citizens. The tendering authority was entitled to prescribe specialised eligibility criteria, including prior experience in operating a visa centre for a diplomatic mission and handling a specified application volume, where those conditions reflected operational requirements. The conditions were found neither malicious nor tailor-made to exclude competition, and there was no inconsistency with the governing financial rules or bidding guidelines. In tender matters, the prescribing authority retains wide latitude, and eligibility terms will not be struck down absent arbitrariness, discrimination, or violation of Article 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the challenge to the tender conditions was maintainable at the instance of a foreign company when the attack was essentially on the basis of Article 14 and not Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the tender conditions requiring prior experience in operating a visa centre for a diplomatic mission abroad for one year and handling a specified volume of applications were arbitrary, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the governing financial rules and bidding guidelines.

Issue (i): whether the challenge to the tender conditions was maintainable at the instance of a foreign company when the attack was essentially on the basis of Article 14 and not Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 14 is available to all persons, including foreigners, whereas the protection of Article 19(1)(g) is confined to citizens. The petition was entertained only to the extent that it alleged arbitrariness and unreasonableness in violation of Article 14. A foreign company could therefore maintain the writ petition for that limited purpose.

Conclusion: the challenge was maintainable insofar as it was founded on Article 14.

Issue (ii): whether the tender conditions requiring prior experience in operating a visa centre for a diplomatic mission abroad for one year and handling a specified volume of applications were arbitrary, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the governing financial rules and bidding guidelines.

Analysis: The tender authority was entitled to prescribe qualifications reflecting the need for specialised experience and modern technology in visa outsourcing. The distinction between a visa agent and a visa centre was held to be material. The assessment of the required daily volume of applications was left to the authority. The Court found no malicious intent, no tailor-made exclusion of all competitors, and no inconsistency with the relevant financial rules or the CVC guidelines. Mere inability of one bidder to satisfy the conditions did not make the conditions discriminatory.

Conclusion: the impugned tender conditions were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and did not violate Article 14.

Final Conclusion: the writ challenge to the tender terms failed on merits, and the dismissal followed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: in tender matters, the prescribing authority has wide latitude to fix eligibility conditions, and such conditions will not be struck down unless they are shown to be malicious, arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14; foreigners cannot invoke Article 19(1)(g).

---