1 2025:CGHC:40365-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4274 of 2025 Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented By Sumit Yadav Authorized Representative Having Registered Office At M-2/22, Old-22, Kh. No. 26 1st Floor, Block-B Mohan Park, Model Town, Phase-3, Delhi, India 110009 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur – 492002 2 - State Project Director Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh, State Project Office of Samagra Shiksha, Department of School Education, Gocg, 2nd Floor, CGBSE Building, Pension Bada, Tagore Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advocate (through VC) assisted by Mr. Vijay Chawla, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advocate (through VC) assisted by Mr. Vijay Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/Respondent No.1 and Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Akanksha Jain, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :- “I. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside three eligibility criteria i.e "Bidders should have past performance of sports goods of at least 6.00 crores (cumulative) to any state government agencies of Chhattisgarh in the last 3 financial years Secondly "legal entities who intend to participate in the bidding process must possess a valid GST Certificate in India and should have been operational for at least 5 years as on date of submission of the bid in Chhattisgarh state and Thirdly "Technically qualified bidder, must submit a sample of each product as listed above (quantity as per specification) of school sports items to the office of Samagra Shiksha, Chhattisgarh within 3 days office hours and Fourthly Weighing Scale OEM should submit ISO 9001&13485 certification accredited by NABCB and must have registered/Audited Applicant under CDSCO of Additional Terms and Condition (Annexure-P1) in bid No. GEM/2025/B/6473083 issued by the Respondent No.2. II. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WPC No.4263 of 2025 (Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anotehr) and another connected petition vide order dated 11.08.2025, observing as follows : “11. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the Petitioner had assailed four conditions stipulated in the tender. It is pointed out that, pursuant to the issuance of three separate corrigendum(s), three of the impugned conditions have been duly amended, and that the challenge now survives only in respect to the fourth condition, which forms the subject matter of the present two writ petitions. 12. The aforesaid position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 13. In Association of Registration Plates (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “35. Taking up first the challenge to the impugned conditions in the Notices Inviting Tenders issued by various State authorities, we find sufficient force in submissions advanced on behalf of the Union and the State authorities and the contesting manufacturers. The State as the implementing authority has to ensure that scheme of high security plates is effectively implemented. Keeping in view the enormous work involved in switching over to new plates within two years for existing vehicles of such large numbers in each State, resort to 'trial and error' method would prove hazardous. Its concern to get the right and most competent person cannot be questioned. It has to eliminate manufacturers who have developed recently just to enter into the new field. The insistence of the State to search for an experienced manufacturer 4 with sound financial and technical capacity cannot be misunderstood. The relevant terms and conditions quoted above are so formulated to enable the State to adjudge the capability of a particular tenderer who can provide a fail-safe and sustainable delivery capacity. Only such tenderer has to be selected who can take responsibility for marketing, servicing and providing continuously the specified plates for vehicles in large number firstly in initial two years and annually in the next 13 years. The manufacturer chosen would, in fact, be a sort of an agent or medium of the RTOs concerned for fulfillment of the statutory obligations on them of providing high security plates to vehicles in accordance with rule 50. Capacity and capability are two most relevant criteria for framing suitable conditions of any Notices Inviting Tenders. The impugned clauses by which it is stipulated that the tenderer individually or as a member of joint- venture must have an experience in the field of registration plates in at least three countries, a common minimum net worth of Rs. 40 crores and either joint-venture partner having a minimum annual turnover of at least Rs. 50 crores and a minimum of 15% turnover of registration plates business have been, as stated, incorporated as essential conditions to ensure that the manufacturer selected would be technically and financially competent to fulfil the contractual obligations which looking to the magnitude of the job requires huge investment qualitatively and quantitively. 36. In the course of hearing, it could not be seriously disputed by the parties that technical know-how for the high security registration plates is outside the country. It is true that many indigenous manufacturers are in a position to supply the plates on the basis of technical assistance available in and outside the country. There are many tenderer who possess Type Approval Certificates [TACs] but to ensure major quantity of supply in initial two years and periodical supply for new vehicles for a long 5 period, only a manufacturer who is sound both technically and financially, is required. Learned Brother G. P. Mathur J., in his elaborate opinion expressed by him [See 2004(5) SCC 364] found a serious vice in the tender conditions that they necessarily intend to promote such companies which have foreign collaborations and exclude indigenous manufacturers. 40. Selecting one manufacturer through a process of open competition is not creation of any monopoly, as contended, in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution read with clause (6) of the said Article. As is sought to be pointed out, the implementation involves large network of operations of highly sophisticated materials. The manufacturer has to have embossing stations within the premises of the RTO. He has to maintain a data of each plate which he would be getting from his main unit. It has to be cross- checked by the RTO data. There has to be a server in the RTO's office which is linked with all RTOs' in each State and thereon linked to the whole nation. Maintenance of record by one and supervision over its activity would be simpler for the State if there is one manufacturer instead of multi- manufacturers as suppliers. The actual operation of the scheme through the RTOs in their premises would get complicated and confused if multi-manufacturers are involved. That would also seriously impair the high security concept in affixation of new plates on the vehicles. If there is a single manufacturer he can be forced to go and serve rural areas with thin vehicular population and less volume of business. Multi-manufacturers might concentrate only on urban areas with higher vehicular population.” 14. The scope of judicial review in tender matters is well-settled: it is confined to examining whether the process suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides, or is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have adopted it. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the wisdom of the tendering authority in framing terms and 6 conditions, particularly when such conditions have a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved and are not shown to be discriminatory or arbitrary. 15. It is noteworthy that in Association of Registration Plates (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering a challenge to similar tender conditions for the implementation of High Security Registration Plates, upheld the authority of the State to insist upon eligibility criteria designed to ensure that only technically competent and financially sound entities undertake large-scale and sensitive public projects. 16. In paragraphs 35 and 36 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the magnitude of the work, coupled with the need for continuity of supply and service for over a decade, warranted stringent qualifying conditions so as to exclude inexperienced or inadequately resourced bidders. The insistence on proven capacity and capability, both technical and financial, was held to be a legitimate means to safeguard public interest and ensure effective implementation. 17. Further, in paragraph 40 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court repelled the contention that selection of a single manufacturer through open competition amounted to creation of a monopoly. It was held that the very nature of the scheme requiring a vast operational network, sophisticated technology, integrated data management with the RTOs, and uniformity in supply, justified selection of a single qualified manufacturer, as multiple suppliers could cause operational complications, compromise security, and neglect low-density rural areas. 18. In the present case, the eligibility condition impugned by the Petitioners is of similar nature and 7 purpose. The Respondents have demonstrated that such conditions are not unique to this State but are prevalent in other States such as Gujarat, Assam, Delhi, Odisha, and Jharkhand, where the Petitioner himself has successfully participated and obtained contracts in the State of Jharkhand. This negates the argument of discrimination or unreasonableness. The State, as the implementing authority, is entitled to prescribe conditions that ensure the selection of the most capable and reliable bidder to execute a public project of significant scale, sensitivity, and public importance. 19. Accordingly, applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Association of Registration Plates (supra) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the impugned tender conditions are neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. They are directly related to the legitimate objective of ensuring technical competence, financial strength, operational capacity, and long-term reliability of successful bidder. 20. Resultantly, both the writ petitions being WPC No.4263/2025 and WPC No.4266/2025, are dismissed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to cost(s).” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPC No.4263 of 2025 and another connected petition, this petition may also be decided in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it 8 is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPC No.4263 of 2025 and another connected petition, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No.4263 of 2025 and another connected petition. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in WPC No.4263 of 2025 and another connected petition. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra