Court upholds eligibility criteria in tender notification, dismissing challenge as reasonable and transparent.

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria in a tender notification set by Respondent-CSMCL. The Court found the criteria reasonable and not arbitrary, rejecting claims of favoritism or malafide intent. It concluded that the decision-making process was transparent and based on valid reasons, such as past financial losses and compliance with tax regulations. Additionally, the Court noted that the timing of the tender notification did not limit participation, as new firms, including those from outside the state, participated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the eligibility criteria in the tender notification.
2. Allegation of arbitrary and discriminatory actions by Respondent-CSMCL.
3. Compliance with guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission.
4. Timing of the tender notification publication.
5. Judicial review of tender conditions and decision-making process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the eligibility criteria in the tender notification:
The Petitioner challenged the eligibility criteria prescribed by Respondent-CSMCL in Clause 2.1 of the tender notification, which required Chartered Accountants Firms to have at least 2 years of audit experience in the last 3 financial years with Government Organizations/Govt. PSUs in the liquor business. The Petitioner argued that this clause was framed to benefit firms previously engaged with Respondent-CSMCL and was arbitrary.

2. Allegation of arbitrary and discriminatory actions by Respondent-CSMCL:
The Petitioner contended that the eligibility criteria were designed to exclude certain firms and extend undue benefits to previously engaged firms, violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner also claimed that the cancellation of earlier tenders was a deliberate attempt to achieve hidden objectives.

3. Compliance with guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission:
The Petitioner argued that the eligibility criteria violated the directions issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. However, Respondent-CSMCL defended the criteria, stating that it was essential due to the new tax system introduced by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and their past financial losses due to inexperienced auditors.

4. Timing of the tender notification publication:
The Petitioner claimed that the tender notification was published during the Diwali festival to limit participation. Respondent-CSMCL countered this by stating that the tender was widely circulated through the State Agency 'Chhattisgarh Samvad,' and new firms, including one from outside Chhattisgarh, participated, indicating no foul play.

5. Judicial review of tender conditions and decision-making process:
The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by malice. The Court found that Respondent-CSMCL's actions were transparent, reasonable, and based on valid reasons, such as past financial losses and the new tax system. The Court also noted that new firms participated in the tender, disproving the Petitioner's claim of favoritism.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or malafide intent in Respondent-CSMCL's actions. The eligibility criteria were justified, and the decision-making process was found to be reasonable and rational. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed.

---