Tender conditions withstand limited judicial review where no arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias is shown and a non-bidder lacks standing.

A non-bidder NGO lacking aggrieved-party status could not maintain a writ challenge to tender conditions. Tender terms, including airport clustering, experience requirements, and turnover criteria, fall within the tendering authority's commercial discretion, and judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases of arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides, or bias. The authority's commercial and operational justification was accepted, so the conditions were not interfered with. The MSME policy and related procurement norms did not invalidate the tender criteria, and the tender conditions were restored with the writ petition rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the tender conditions was maintainable at the instance of an NGO which was not itself a bidder; (ii) whether the clustering of airports, the experience requirement, and the turnover criterion in the tender conditions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or otherwise amenable to interference under Article 226; (iii) whether the MSME policy and related procurement norms invalidated the tender conditions.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the tender conditions was maintainable at the instance of an NGO which was not itself a bidder.

Analysis: The writ petition was not in the nature of a public interest litigation. None of the actual or potential bidders challenged the tender conditions. The petitioner was an NGO not shown to be an aggrieved party in the tender process. In these circumstances, the challenge to the tender conditions at its instance was not maintainable.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the clustering of airports, the experience requirement, and the turnover criterion in the tender conditions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or otherwise amenable to interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The formulation of tender terms lies within the domain of the tendering authority. Judicial review is limited and interference is warranted only where the conditions are shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or actuated by bias. The authority explained the commercial and operational rationale for the clustering, the experience requirement, and the financial eligibility norm. The impugned conditions could not be characterized as arbitrary or mala fide merely because another formulation might have been preferable.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the MSME policy and related procurement norms invalidated the tender conditions.

Analysis: The MSME framework could not override the tender conditions in the manner suggested. The tender for ground handling services was not equated with procurement of goods and services for the purpose of displacing the tender criteria. In any event, once the writ petition itself was not maintainable and the tender conditions were not shown to be unlawful, the MSME-based challenge could not succeed.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The tender conditions were restored, the writ petition stood rejected, and the appeals succeeded by reason of the Court's refusal to interfere with the tender-making authority's policy choices.

Ratio Decidendi: A tender condition framed by the State or its instrumentality is subject to judicial review only on a limited showing of arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides, or bias, and a non-bidder NGO lacking the status of an aggrieved party cannot ordinarily maintain a writ challenge to such conditions.

---