1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2714 of 2026 Date of Decision : 25.06.2026 Golden Furnishers …… Petitioner Versus The Additional Chief Secretary, Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) Challenge in the present writ petition is to recall the tender process as initiated vide bid documents dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) and dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) with further directions to the respondents to initiate a fresh process by giving clear cut specifications of the products to be purchased in the interest of law and justice. 2. It was the grudge of the petitioner that the Government of Himachal Pradesh had published two separate bid documents on GeM Portal bearing Bid Nos.GEM/ 2025/B/6931391 and GEM/2025/B/6954162 on 29.12.2025 through the Department of Social Justice and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Empowerment. One of the bid documents pertained to ‘Chairs’ (Pre School Kit) Plastic Moulded Table (Annexure P-1) and the second one pertained to Plastic Rocker (Annexure P-2). It was also the grudge of the petitioner that the exact specifications for the supply should have been fixed and there was no pre-bid meeting and the clarity was not established. Representations having been made by the various top most manufactures regarding this issue while referring to Annexure P-5 to Annexure P-7 and resultantly the writ petition came to be filed, alleging that the petitioner qualifies all the conditions required for being technically qualified, which fact provided for having a Rs.300 lakhs minimum average annual turnover for the last three years and OEM average turnover for the last three years as 1000 lakhs with respect to Chairs and Tables (Annexure P-1). Similarly, for the issue of the Plastic Rocker (Annexure P-2), the minimum average turnover of Rs.199 lakhs for the last three years and OEM average turnover for the last three years as Rs.660 lakhs, were required. 3. The stand of the State is clear that the petitioner has not even participated in the tender process and is a “stranger to the contract” and cannot challenge the technical specifications. The GeM portal provides a dedicated “Representation Window” for grievances, which have to be utilized within 4 days of bid publication. It is pointed out that 13 bidders participated for the Tables/Chairs category and 7 bidders participated for the Plastic Rocker, demonstrating sufficient competition and transparency in the bidding process. 3 4. Reference is also made to the participation of ‘Supreme Industries Limited’ to the bidding process a reputed manufacturer of the goods. It is, thus, further submitted that the legal notice was served on 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-8), raising the said issues and thereafter the writ petition came to be filed on 03.03.2026. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and others, 1999 (1) SCC 492 and Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others, 2007 (14) SCC 517, has held as under:- “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not to check whether choice or decision is 'sound'. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural 4 violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interference, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions : i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.' ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving black- listing or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of state largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 6. The judicial interference in the tender matters is thus to be limited and the Courts are not to interfere with the commercial decisions unless there is any arbitrariness and mala fide. The fact remains as such that the petitioner himself has not participated in the tender process and is stranger to the said process and, therefore, cannot stand outside and question the whole process of the tender, in which the persons who had 5 duly represented and applied and being fully eligible, as such, in view of the volume of the contract could have given the due representation, which would be duly considered by the respondents. 7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition in such a form is not liable to be entertained, as awarding of the contract as such on the basis of a tender process duly followed by the State cannot be subject to unnecessary judicial review at the hands of the persons, who have not even chosen to participate in the process for the reasons best known to them. 8. We are also doubtful, as to whether the petitioner being proprietorship concern had the necessary eligibility criteria for the said contract to participate in the tender process without attaching any document regarding its financial capacity. 9. Resultantly, we do not feel that it is a fit case for interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) June 25, 2026 (KS) Judge