1 2025:CGHC:40174-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4263 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 - Sate 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. ... Respondents WPC No. 4266 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. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.12 10:23:42 +0530 2 2 - Sate 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. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 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 Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board (11.08. 2025 ) Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1. Since common issue has been involved in these writ petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advocate (through VC) assisted by Mr. Vijay Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in both the writ petitions. 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. 3 3. WPC No.4263/2025 has been filed by the Petitioner with the following relief(s):- “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/6472893 issued by the 4 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.” 4. WPC No.4266/2025 has been filed by the Petitioner with the following relief(s):- “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 5 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/6473135 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.” 5. Brief facts of the cases, in a nutshell, are as follows : • Background of the Petitioner: The Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and has been engaged in the business of supplying goods for gain for over a decade. It has successfully executed large- scale supply orders for various government departments and agencies in the States of Assam, Bihar, Karnataka, Gujarat, and the Government of NCT of Delhi, particularly for procurement of items similar to those forming the subject matter of the present tender. • Tender in Question: Respondent No.2 – Samagra Shiksha, Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh issued a tender through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) 6 platform bearing Nos.GEM/2025/B/6472893 and GEM/2025/B/6473135, respectively, for procurement of 30,494 sports material kits for Government Primary Schools in Chhattisgarh. The total value of the tender is ₹15,24,70,000/- and ₹11,49,25,000/-, respectively. • Challenged Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC): The Petitioner is aggrieved by certain conditions inserted in the Additional Terms and Conditions of the tender, which it contends are illegal, arbitrary, anti-competitive, and violative of the principles of transparency and equal opportunity in public procurement. The impugned conditions are: (i) Past Performance Restriction: Bidders must have supplied sports goods worth at least ₹6.00 crores (cumulative) to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in the last three financial years. This requirement effectively excludes competent suppliers from outside the State, discourages wider participation, and fosters cartelisation. (ii) Mandatory Chhattisgarh GST Registration & State Presence: Legal entities must hold a valid Chhattisgarh State GST registration and have been operational in the State for at least five years as on the date of bid submission. The Petitioner contends this is contrary to the very objective of GST as a unified nationwide tax regime intended to remove inter-state trade barriers. 7 (iii) Advance Submission of Product Samples: Technically qualified bidders must submit physical samples of each product within 3 days. The Petitioner asserts this is contrary to the CVC guidelines and the GeM Bid Document (Clause 3.8), both of which discourage or prohibit mandatory advance samples at the bidding stage as such practice promotes corruption and bias. (iv) ISO & CDSCO Certification for Weighing Scales: The ATC mandates that the weighing scale OEM should possess ISO 9001 & 13485 certification accredited by NABCB and be registered/audited with CDSCO. The Petitioner asserts that the weighing scale in the sports kit is a general use item, not a medical device under the CDSCO’s notified list, making the requirement unnecessary and discriminatory. • Grounds of Challenge: (i) The restriction to bidders with prior supplies to Chhattisgarh Government is an artificial barrier to competition, contrary to the principles laid down by the CVC that tender conditions must be fair, reasonable, and non- discriminatory; (ii) The insistence on Chhattisgarh GST registration prior to bidding is anti-competitive and contrary to the GST regime’s purpose of creating a common national market. Other States, such as Gujarat in similar tenders, allow GST registration to be obtained post-award of the contract; (iii) 8 The requirement of advance samples is expressly discouraged by CVC guidelines and contradicts GeM’s own procurement policies, which provide that samples may be sought only after award of contract for quality assurance, not during technical qualification, and (iv) The CDSCO certification requirement for a weighing scale used in a sports kit is arbitrary and without statutory basis, as such a device is not classified as a medical device under CDSCO’s notified categories. • Loss to Public Interest: By restricting participation to a few pre-qualified local suppliers, the impugned conditions enable cartelisation, inflate bid prices, and result in loss to the public exchequer. The Petitioner apprehends that a nexus exists between certain bidders who possess the specific molds and prior supply experience demanded in the tender, leading to monopolisation. • Representation to Authorities: On 29.07.2025, the Petitioner submitted a written representation (Annexure-P/9) to the Respondents requesting relaxation of the restrictive clauses. However, no response or corrective action has been taken till date. Hence, the present petitions. 6. Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned eligibility conditions prescribed in the Additional Terms and Conditions (ATC) of the tender are illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory, and ultra vires the 9 governing procurement laws, policies, and constitutional provisions. He further submitted that as per the Compilation of CVC Guidelines on Tenders and Contracts (published during Vigilance Awareness Week, 26–31 October 2015), any pre- qualification or exclusion criteria must be explicit, reasonable, and framed so as to ensure transparency, equity, and fairness in tendering. The present tender, however, incorporates conditions that are tailor-made to favour a select few local bidders, thereby frustrating the very purpose of open competitive bidding. Learned counsel contended that the requirement of Chhattisgarh State GST registration prior to bidding is restrictive in nature and promotes cartelisation. Under the GST regime, which follows a dual structure of CGST and SGST and also provides for IGST on inter-state supplies, the intent of the legislature is to facilitate ease of doing business and create a unified national market. Such a requirement undermines the constitutional guarantee of free trade, commerce, and intercourse under Article 301, and acts as a barrier to participation of out-of-state vendors in tenders which, by value and nature, should be national in scope. It is further argued that the insistence on advance submission of product samples is contrary to the CVC Office Memorandum dated 15.10.2003, which specifically provides that if advance samples are necessary, they may be sought from the successful bidder only for indeterminable parameters before bulk production, not at the pre-qualification stage. The Government e-Marketplace (GeM) policy also 10 discourages such requirements during the technical evaluation stage as they invite subjectivity and corruption. The learned counsel submitted that the mandatory ISO and CDSCO certification for the weighing scale in the sports kit is wholly unwarranted. The CDSCO registration is intended for medical devices under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The weighing scale forming part of the sports kit is not a medical device, and hence the requirement has no rational nexus with the object of the tender, rendering it arbitrary and unreasonable. It is pointed out that the Petitioner’s representation dated 29.07.2025, highlighting these issues, has not been acted upon by the Respondents, nor has any reply been furnished, even though the highest authority of the State was duly informed. The inaction on the representation itself shows non-application of mind and procedural unfairness. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024), wherein it was held that government bodies/instrumentalities must act in a fair, reasonable, and transparent manner in awarding contracts, and any element of arbitrariness or discrimination would not be in public interest. Similarly, in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, it was held that principles of judicial review apply to government contracts to prevent arbitrariness and favouritism in public procurement. On these grounds, it was submitted that the 11 impugned eligibility conditions are liable to be struck down, and the Respondents be directed to reframe the tender terms in a manner that ensures open, fair, and competitive bidding in accordance with law. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel General assisted by Ms. Akanksha Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and submitted that the eligibility conditions prescribed in the tender are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but are reasonable, lawful, and in line with prevailing procurement practices across various States. It is contended that similar eligibility requirements, including past performance criteria and state-specific GST registration, have been incorporated in tender documents issued by other States such as Gujarat, Assam, Delhi, Odisha, and Jharkhand for comparable procurement projects. The Petitioner itself has participated in and successfully secured a tender in the State of Jharkhand under comparable eligibility conditions. Having availed the benefit of similar clauses in another State, the Petitioner is estopped from challenging the same here merely because it does not suit its commercial convenience. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the purpose of stipulating prior supply experience within the State and local GST registration is to ensure that the bidder has sufficient familiarity with State-specific supply chains, logistics, tax compliance, and operational requirements, which is 12 particularly crucial for a time-bound public distribution program involving schools spread across rural and remote areas. These conditions are intended to safeguard timely delivery, ensure quality compliance, and prevent supply-chain disruptions. It is further argued that tender conditions are a matter of contractual stipulation within the domain of the procuring authority, and unless they are shown to be patently arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by mala fides, judicial review in contractual matters is limited. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 SCC 679, wherein it was held that the State and its instrumentalities have the freedom to prescribe conditions in tenders in the interest of the project, provided they act reasonably, fairly, and in public interest, and the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over such contractual decisions. It is submitted that the present tender has been floated on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) platform with complete transparency, the conditions have been explicitly stated upfront, and no post-facto alteration has been made. All bidders, including the Petitioner, have been given an equal opportunity to participate subject to the stipulated qualifications. The procurement conditions, therefore, do not suffer from any infirmity and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondent No.1 concurs with and adopts the submissions of the learned Senior 13 Counsel, appearing for Respondent No.2 and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions in limine. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petitions. 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 14 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 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 15 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 16 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 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 17 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 18 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 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 19 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 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 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). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu