Public procurement policy changes and mandatory tender publication rules can be struck down when arbitrary or non-compliant.

Government procurement policies remain subject to judicial review when a change in tender model lacks rational justification and produces arbitrary or discriminatory exclusion of suppliers. The shift from State-wise to zone-wise tendering, coupled with conditions excluding egg suppliers and outside-State producers, was treated as lacking nexus with the scheme's object and as an unreasonable restriction on trade; the policy and tender conditions were set aside. Mandatory tender publication requirements under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Rules, 2000 were also enforced, and failure to publish the notice in the prescribed wider forums vitiated the process. The earlier procurement framework was restored and a fresh tender directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned Government Order changing the procurement model from State-wise tender to zone-wise tender, and the consequential tender conditions excluding suppliers and outside-State producers, were arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the impugned tender process was vitiated for non-compliance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned Government Order changing the procurement model from State-wise tender to zone-wise tender, and the consequential tender conditions excluding suppliers and outside-State producers, were arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Constitution.

Analysis: The impugned Government Order was issued within a short span of time on the basis of a single representation, without any persuasive material showing that the earlier State-wise tender model had failed or that the new zone-wise model would better serve the nutritious meal programme. The earlier State-wise tender policy had already been upheld in prior litigation, and the new conditions substantially curtailed participation by excluding egg suppliers and outside-State producers. The classification was found to have no rational nexus with the object of the scheme and to have resulted in an unreasonable restriction on trade and an arbitrary preference in favour of a selected class of tenderers. The decision-making process was held to be tainted by haste, lack of adequate justification, and colourable exercise of power.

Conclusion: The impugned Government Order and the consequential tender conditions were held to be unconstitutional and invalid, and the challenge on this ground succeeded in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned tender process was vitiated for non-compliance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000.

Analysis: The tender notice was not published in the Indian Trade Journal or in newspapers of wide circulation, despite the statutory scheme requiring wider publication where the procurement value attracts those provisions. The Court treated the publication requirements as mandatory safeguards designed to ensure fairness, equitable treatment, transparency, and wider competition. Since these statutory requirements were not followed, the tender process was held to be contrary to the governing tender law.

Conclusion: The tender process was held to be vitiated for breach of the mandatory tender publication requirements, and the challenge on this ground succeeded in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned policy change and the resulting tender process, restored the earlier procurement framework, and directed a fresh tender strictly in accordance with the governing tender law.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental policy governing public procurement remains subject to judicial review where it is arbitrary, discriminatory, unsupported by rational justification, or contrary to mandatory statutory tender requirements.

---