CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has declined to interfere with the state government’s eligibility conditions for a tender to procure paper for textbooks, holding that authorities concerned enjoy considerable freedom to frame requirements according to their needs, provided they are reasonable and free from arbitrariness or malafide intent.
A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, while dismissing a writ petition filed by a private paper supplier on October 7, observed that courts must exercise caution before interfering with administrative decisions relating to tender processes.
“Every administrative action does not call for interference and, therefore, the Court must put a great caution in interfering therewith,” the bench said, emphasising the need to respect the discretion of authorities in framing tender conditions.
The dispute arose from a tender floated by the directorate of Textbook Production and Marketing on September 11 for the supply of 26,450 metric tonne of 70 GSM Maplitho reel paper with watermark, measuring 84 cm, for textbook production. The opening of technical bids was scheduled for October 8.
One of the eligibility conditions required bidders to demonstrate experience in supplying Maplitho virgin paper with watermark, equivalent to at least 60 per cent of the tender quantity or a minimum of 11,000 tonne annually, in each of the preceding three consecutive years, to government, semi-government departments or organisations.
The petitioner challenged the requirement, alleging that it was excessive, arbitrary and designed to favour select suppliers through nepotism and favouritism. It argued that insisting on watermarked paper lacked a direct connection with textbook printing and would exclude otherwise capable bidders. The annual supply requirement, it contended, also restricted competition by limiting participation to a few established players.
During a pre-bid meeting, several prospective bidders raised objections to the eligibility criteria. Following deliberations, the authorities issued a corrigendum on September 30, reducing the minimum annual supply requirement from 11,000 tonne to 10,000 tonne.
The bench, however, found no arbitrariness in requiring bidders to have supplied the specified paper during the preceding years. It also took note of the authorities’ decision to hold the pre-bid meeting and reduce the quantity requirement after deliberations.
“The Court must respect the freedom into the tender inviting authorities for incorporating any terms and conditions which is reasonable, rational and does not inculcate any sense of arbitrariness or mala fide,” the judges observed.
The bench further said tendering authorities could tailor conditions to their requirements and that the absence of a similar condition in another state would not, by itself, make the requirement liable to judicial interference.