CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT L.R.Y Labour Contractor Versus State of Punjab and others 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, For respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. For respondent No. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the technical as well as financial bid Traders) qua Tender ID: (official respondents) CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO. L.R.Y Labour Contractor Versus State of Punjab and others The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any of the pronouncement of judgment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate Mr. J.S. Kaliraman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, For respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. S. Gill, Advocate, For respondent No.4. LAPITA BANERJI, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the technical as well as financial bid of the Tender ID:2026_DOA_161991_1 (official respondents). The petitioner has, inter alia IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CWP NO.8671 OF 2026 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents 11.05.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.05.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded 27.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Advocate with Kapoor, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Challenge in the present writ petition is to the acceptance of of the respondent No.4 (Micky 2026_DOA_161991_1 by respondents No.2 and 3 inter alia, prayed for issuance of a SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to issue a Letter of Award (LOA) in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in short, is that despite the respondent No.4 not be Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT), the official respondents illegally and arbitrarily accepted the technical and financial bid 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i) A respondent No.3 for Infrastructure by retail and other vehicles for a period of 12 months from April 01, 2026 to March 31, 2027. ii) The regarding enlistment of contractor firms in Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board DNIT in question which respondent No.3. iii) Evaluation of the technical bids was done on and the financial bids were opened on the same very day. As per the Tender Summary Report of respondent No.4 was found to be responsive. Upon acceptance of the technical bid of respondent No.4, the financial bid su accepted being the highest bidder iv) Clause 9 enlistment of firms having requisite experience applying for user charges CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to issue a Letter of Award (LOA) in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder. The grievance of the petitioner in short, is that despite the respondent No.4 not being technically qualified in terms of the Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT), the official respondents illegally and arbitrarily accepted the technical and financial bid The brief facts of the case are as follows: A DNIT was issued by the Market Committee, Ludhiana respondent No.3 for recovery/realization of user charges for Infrastructure by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, for a period of 12 months from April 01, 2026 to March 31, 2027. The 2025 instructions as applicable from February 01, 2026, regarding enlistment of contractor firms in Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Punjab Mandi Board)-respondent No in question which was issued on February 13, 2026 respondent No.3. Evaluation of the technical bids was done on and the financial bids were opened on the same very day. As per the Tender Report dated March 18, 2026 (Annexure P of respondent No.4 was found to be responsive. Upon acceptance of the technical bid of respondent No.4, the financial bid su accepted being the highest bidder (H-1). Clause 9 (a) of the Mandi Board instructions regarding enlistment of firms having requisite experience for user charges, collection related works must have writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to issue a Letter of Award (LOA) in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder. The grievance of the petitioner in short, is that despite the ing technically qualified in terms of the Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT), the official respondents illegally and arbitrarily accepted the technical and financial bids of the respondent No.4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: IT was issued by the Market Committee, Ludhiana- user charges for utilising Mandi fruits, vegetables, eatables etc for a period of 12 months from April 01, 2026 to March 31, 2027. as applicable from February 01, 2026, regarding enlistment of contractor firms in Punjab State Agricultural respondent No.2 is to govern the was issued on February 13, 2026, by the Evaluation of the technical bids was done on March 03, 2026 and the financial bids were opened on the same very day. As per the Tender dated March 18, 2026 (Annexure P-5), the technical bid of respondent No.4 was found to be responsive. Upon acceptance of the technical bid of respondent No.4, the financial bid submitted by it was also of the Mandi Board instructions regarding the enlistment of firms having requisite experience, stipulated that the firm collection related works must have an experience SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) of collection Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) for the December 31, 2025). v) The Completion/ Experience annual collection of user charges/parking fees during the December 31, 2025). vi) According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 firm did not have the requisite experience as stipulated in the DN decision of the official respondents, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court alleging that the respondent No.4 could not meet the eligibility criteria on the basis of documents uploaded by it 4. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned senior counsel of the petitioner paper-book to submit that official respondents held that respondent No.4 had 02 experience in collection of user charges/parking fees, vide letter dated March 09, 2026. 5. It was further brought Experience Certif respondent No.4 participated in Capital Cattle Fair, Rajpura fragmented periods and the last participation was to December 15, 2024. The said Certificate was neither for a 02 years ending on December 31, 2025 nor did it relate to collection of parking fees or user charges. Furthermore, it was contended that CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) of user charges/parking fees in v Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) for the December 31, 2025). The bidders were required to submit Experience Certificate(s) indicating successful execution of annual collection of user charges/parking fees during the December 31, 2025). According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 firm did not have the requisite experience as stipulated in the DN decision of the official respondents, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court alleging that the respondent No.4 could not meet the eligibility criteria on the basis of documents uploaded by it Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned senior counsel of the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to pages 76 to 80 of the book to submit that arbitrarily and with official respondents held that respondent No.4 had 02 experience in collection of user charges/parking fees, vide letter dated March 09, 2026. It was further brought into the notice of this Court that the Experience Certificate annexed at page 76 only indicated that respondent No.4 participated in Capital Cattle Fair, Rajpura fragmented periods and the last participation was to December 15, 2024. The said Certificate was neither for a 02 years ending on December 31, 2025 nor did it relate to collection of parking fees or user charges. Furthermore, it was contended that user charges/parking fees in various Government/Semi- Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) for the last 02 years (upto bidders were required to submit their respective indicating successful execution of annual collection of user charges/parking fees during the last 02 years (upto According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 firm did not have the requisite experience as stipulated in the DNIT. Challenging the decision of the official respondents, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court alleging that the respondent No.4 could not meet the eligibility criteria on the basis of documents uploaded by it vis-à-vis the experience. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf draws the attention of this Court to pages 76 to 80 of the arbitrarily and with mala fide intention, the official respondents held that respondent No.4 had 02 (+) years of experience in collection of user charges/parking fees, vide letter dated to the notice of this Court that the icate annexed at page 76 only indicated that the respondent No.4 participated in Capital Cattle Fair, Rajpura for various fragmented periods and the last participation was from December 16, 2023 to December 15, 2024. The said Certificate was neither for a period of last 02 years ending on December 31, 2025 nor did it relate to collection of parking fees or user charges. Furthermore, it was contended that in tenders SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) floated for the same work Municipal Council, Rajpura, District Patiala, were held to be technically unresponsive as it did not fulfil the experience criteria of 02 (+) 6. Notice of motion was issued on March 20, 2026. 7. Mr. respondents No.2 and 3 bids of both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were technicall and since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder (H Rs.16,51,51,000/ petitioner and the same was accepted by neither any mala fide by the Board. 8. It is further contended that the Mandi Board instructions relied upon by the petitioner were computation and greater revenue for the of Clause 9 (a), if considered in proper perspective, would only lead to the practical conclusion that of experience in collection of user charges/parking fees 2025 and there was no mandatory requirement for the said experience of 02 years to be immediately the respondent No.4 had a continuous experience in matters relating collection of user charges/ and sufficiently met the eligibility criteria relating to 02 years of experience. CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) for the same work by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala and Municipal Council, Rajpura, District Patiala, held to be technically unresponsive as it did not fulfil the experience (+) years in collection of user charges/parking fees. Notice of motion was issued on March 20, 2026. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 (Mandi Board), relying on his reply submits that bids of both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were technicall and since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder (H 16,51,51,000/- against the bid price of Rs.15,03,33,000/ petitioner and the same was accepted by the Mandi Board mala fide intention nor any ulterior motive in such acceptance It is further contended that the Mandi Board instructions relied upon by the petitioner were directory in nature to ensure uniformity, better computation and greater revenue for the Board of Clause 9 (a), if considered in proper perspective, would only lead to the practical conclusion that a prospective bidder was required to have 02 years of experience in collection of user charges/parking fees and there was no mandatory requirement for the said experience of 02 years to be immediately preceding the date of respondent No.4 had a continuous experience in matters relating collection of user charges/parking fees from 2018 and sufficiently met the eligibility criteria relating to 02 years of experience. Page 4 of 11 Municipal Corporation, Patiala and Municipal Council, Rajpura, District Patiala, the bids of respondent No.4 held to be technically unresponsive as it did not fulfil the experience years in collection of user charges/parking fees. Notice of motion was issued on March 20, 2026. , learned counsel appearing on behalf of , relying on his reply submits that bids of both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were technically responsive and since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder (H-1) with bid price of against the bid price of Rs.15,03,33,000/- offered by the the Mandi Board. There was intention nor any ulterior motive in such acceptance, It is further contended that the Mandi Board instructions relied in nature to ensure uniformity, better Board, in public interest. The scope of Clause 9 (a), if considered in proper perspective, would only lead to the prospective bidder was required to have 02 years of experience in collection of user charges/parking fees by December 31, and there was no mandatory requirement for the said experience of 02 the date of December 31, 2025. In fact, respondent No.4 had a continuous experience in matters relating to parking fees from 2018-19 upto February 2025 and sufficiently met the eligibility criteria relating to 02 years of experience. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) Therefore, there was no infirmity the bid of respondent No.4 to be technically responsi 9. Mr. appearing on behalf of the State made on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 10. Mr. respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has been enlisted as a contractor vide letter dated February 24, 2026 by the Mandi Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali till February 28, 2027. He submits that the sole proprietor of respondent No.4 which have been awarded contracts by Rural Development and Panchayat Department for organising 11, 2018 till February, 2025. also include experience the petitioner regarding respondent No.4 completely misconceived and liable to be rejected. 11. He further regarding the respondent No.4 not hav of user charges/parking fees for the was a hyper technical instructions was behind the said c perspective. The tenderer was only required to have 02 years of experience with Gover (PSUs), within the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In other words, the CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) Therefore, there was no infirmity on the part of the Mandi Board of respondent No.4 to be technically responsi Mr. Sourabh Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State-respondent No.1 made on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3-Mandi Board. Mr. Singh, learned senior advocate respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has been enlisted as a contractor vide letter dated February 24, 2026 by the Mandi Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali till February 28, 2027. He submits that the sole proprietor of respondent No.4-firm, one Ravinder Singh, was a partner in various firms which have been awarded contracts by Rural Development and Panchayat Department for organising of cattle fairs in the State of Punjab from July February, 2025. Experience in o also include experience in collection of user charges and the argument of the petitioner regarding respondent No.4-firm not being experienced is completely misconceived and liable to be rejected. He further submits that the primary respondent No.4 not having sufficient experience of collection of user charges/parking fees for the last 02 years was a hyper technical argument. Clause 9 (a) of the Mandi instructions was being wrongly interpreted by the petitioner behind the said clause had to be seen to appreciate the clause in its proper . The tenderer was only required to have 02 years of experience with Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector (PSUs), within the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In other words, the on the part of the Mandi Board in holding of respondent No.4 to be technically responsive. , Additional Advocate General, Punjab respondent No.1 adopts the submissions Mandi Board. advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has been enlisted as a contractor vide letter dated February 24, 2026 by the Mandi Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali till February 28, 2027. He submits that the sole proprietor of firm, one Ravinder Singh, was a partner in various firms which have been awarded contracts by Rural Development and Panchayat, cattle fairs in the State of Punjab from July Experience in organising cattle fairs would collection of user charges and the argument of firm not being experienced is completely misconceived and liable to be rejected. that the primary contention of the petitioner sufficient experience of collection 02 years upto December 31, 2025 Clause 9 (a) of the Mandi Board’s by the petitioner and the object lause had to be seen to appreciate the clause in its proper . The tenderer was only required to have 02 years of requisite Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs), within the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In other words, the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) experience of the tenderer 31, 2025 and t work for 02 years preceding the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In the event, such interpretation given by the petitioner is accepted by the Court, then it would lead to an absurd situation where a tenderer having experience of 04 years of Undertaking (PSUs) would have to be declared ineligible even if his contract tenure got over by vehemently argued that the interpretation suggest Clause 9 (a) is totally misconceived and liable to be rejected. 12. Next, he contends that the petitioner had not laid challenge to the enlistment of respondent No.4 in the present writ petition on that count also t 13. Finally, h regarding allotment of contracts is very narrow and commercial considerations are paramount. transaction would weigh its profit/benefit contract. Since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder difference of Rs.1.5 crores petitioner, acceptance of its bid would only benefit the public exchequer. Therefore, it cannot be contended process by the State 14. This Court has heard perused the material on record. CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) of the tenderer should not be less than 02 years as on December and there was no requirement for tenderer 02 years preceding the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In the interpretation given by the petitioner is accepted by the Court, then it would lead to an absurd situation where a tenderer having experience ears of working with a Government/Semi (PSUs) would have to be declared ineligible even if his contract tenure got over by December 25, 2025 due to vehemently argued that the interpretation suggest Clause 9 (a) is totally misconceived and liable to be rejected. Next, he contends that the petitioner had not laid challenge to the enlistment of respondent No.4 in the present writ petition on that count also the writ petition should fail. Finally, he submitted that the scope for judicial review in cases regarding allotment of contracts is very narrow and commercial considerations are paramount. State, while entering into a commercial transaction would weigh its profit/benefit before entering into contract. Since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder difference of Rs.1.5 crores between the bid of respondent No.4 and titioner, acceptance of its bid would only benefit the public exchequer. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioner process by the State-respondents is either arbitrary or irrational This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Page 6 of 11 should not be less than 02 years as on December tenderer to continue with the 02 years preceding the cut off date of December 31, 2025. In the interpretation given by the petitioner is accepted by the Court, then it would lead to an absurd situation where a tenderer having experience working with a Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector (PSUs) would have to be declared ineligible even if his , 2025 due to efflux of time. It is vehemently argued that the interpretation suggested by the petitioner to Clause 9 (a) is totally misconceived and liable to be rejected. Next, he contends that the petitioner had not laid challenge to the enlistment of respondent No.4 in the present writ petition and therefore . submitted that the scope for judicial review in cases regarding allotment of contracts is very narrow and commercial State, while entering into a commercial before entering into such a contract. Since respondent No.4 was the highest bidder (H-1) and there was between the bid of respondent No.4 and titioner, acceptance of its bid would only benefit the public exchequer. by the petitioner that the decision making respondents is either arbitrary or irrational or mala fide. learned counsel for the parties and SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) 15. The Experience Certificate relied on by respondent No.4 Micky Traders along with his technical bid is reproduced hereinafter: Sr No Name of firm 1 Shadab Rainder & Company, Rajpura 2 Shadab Rainder & Company, Rajpura 3 Rajpura, Mukatsar Cattle Fair, Rajpura 4 Rajpura, Mukatsar Cattle Fair, Rajpura 5 Capital Cattle Fair, Rajpura 16. One Ravinder Singh, sole proprietor of respondent No.4 proprietorship concern was a partner in various other firms wh given contracts f Experience Certificate for organising cattle fair was for fragmented periods from July 11, 2018 to July 10, 2019, August 01, 201 28, 2021 to July 27, 2022, October 22, 2022 to Oct December 16, 2023 to December 15, 2024. In this Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “1968 Rules”) are referred to. Clause 6(1) of the 1968 Rules is reproduced hereinafter:- “Clause 6 or other purposes in connection with the cattle fair shall be allotted by the fair officer by auction before the commencement of the cattle fair. The successful bidder shall pay the full CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) The Experience Certificate relied on by respondent No.4 Micky Traders along with his technical bid is reproduced hereinafter: Name of Period Amount of contract (in Rs.) Balance if any Rainder & 2018-19 (11-7-2018 to 10-7-2019) 72.02.50 NIL Rainder & 2019-20 (1-8-2019 to 31-7-2020) 72.43 cr. NIL Cattle Fair, 2021-22 (28-7-2021 to 27-7-2022) 72.45 cr. NIL Cattle Fair, 2022-23 (22-10-2022 to 21-10-2023) 72.46 cr. NIL Cattle Fair, 16-12-2023 to 15-12-2024 93.90 cr. NIL One Ravinder Singh, sole proprietor of respondent No.4 proprietorship concern was a partner in various other firms wh given contracts for organising cattle fairs in the State of Punjab. The Experience Certificate for organising cattle fair was for fragmented periods from July 11, 2018 to July 10, 2019, August 01, 201 28, 2021 to July 27, 2022, October 22, 2022 to Oct December 16, 2023 to December 15, 2024. In this (Regulation) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “1968 Rules”) are referred to. Clause 6(1) of the 1968 Rules is reproduced Clause 6 (1) – The sites required temporarily for commercial or other purposes in connection with the cattle fair shall be allotted by the fair officer by auction before the commencement of the cattle fair. The successful bidder shall pay the full The Experience Certificate relied on by respondent No.4- Micky Traders along with his technical bid is reproduced hereinafter:- Balance if any Performance of work completed Remarks NIL Satisfactory NIL Satisfactory NIL Satisfactory NIL Satisfactory NIL Satisfactory One Ravinder Singh, sole proprietor of respondent No.4/ proprietorship concern was a partner in various other firms which had been organising cattle fairs in the State of Punjab. The Experience Certificate for organising cattle fair was for fragmented periods from July 11, 2018 to July 10, 2019, August 01, 2019 to July 31, 2020, July 28, 2021 to July 27, 2022, October 22, 2022 to October 21, 2023 and December 16, 2023 to December 15, 2024. In this context, the Punjab (Regulation) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “1968 Rules”) are referred to. Clause 6(1) of the 1968 Rules is reproduced The sites required temporarily for commercial or other purposes in connection with the cattle fair shall be allotted by the fair officer by auction before the commencement of the cattle fair. The successful bidder shall pay the full SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) amount of the rent off to the fair officer who shall issue a receipt the C.F.R.3” 17. A perusal of the said Rules clearly indicates that a successful bidder would have to pay the full amount of rent offered at the the fall of the hammer to the Fair Officer for using sites allotted in the cattle fair for commercial or other purposes, temporarily. The respondent No.4 has participated in cattle fairs and has been allotted sites there no way makes him eligible under Clause 9 (a) as p instructions which specifically are of parking fees/user charges. 18. A perusal of Clause 9 unambiguously indicates collecting user charges/parking fees from various Government/Semi Government/Public Sector Undertaking to be for the last Certificate attached by the respondent No.4 to its technical bid is neither for collection of user charges/parking fees ending on December 15, 2024. 19. Even if it is assumed for organising cattle fairs charges/parking fees by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, eatables etc, then any stretch of imagination, can lead to the conclusion that the experience of respondent No.4 December 15, 2024 could qualify as CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) amount of the rent offered at the auction at the fall of hammer to the fair officer who shall issue a receipt the C.F.R.3” A perusal of the said Rules clearly indicates that a successful bidder would have to pay the full amount of rent offered at the the fall of the hammer to the Fair Officer for using sites allotted in the cattle fair for commercial or other purposes, temporarily. The respondent No.4 has participated in cattle fairs and has been allotted sites there kes him eligible under Clause 9 (a) as p instructions which specifically are qua the experience regarding collection of parking fees/user charges. A perusal of Clause 9 (a) of the Mandi Board unambiguously indicates that the firms must collecting user charges/parking fees from various Government/Semi Government/Public Sector Undertaking (PSUs) last 02 years (upto December 31, 2025) Certificate attached by the respondent No.4 to its technical bid is neither for collection of user charges/parking fees nor is it for a period of ending on December 15, 2024. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments for organising cattle fairs are equivalent to contracts for charges/parking fees by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, eatables etc, then also perusal of the Experience Certificate w any stretch of imagination, can lead to the conclusion that the experience of respondent No.4 from Cattle Fair, Rajpura from December 16, 2023 to December 15, 2024 could qualify as an experience for the ered at the auction at the fall of hammer to the fair officer who shall issue a receipt therefore in Form A perusal of the said Rules clearly indicates that a successful bidder would have to pay the full amount of rent offered at the auction at the fall of the hammer to the Fair Officer for using sites allotted in the cattle fair for commercial or other purposes, temporarily. The respondent No.4 has participated in cattle fairs and has been allotted sites there at but that in kes him eligible under Clause 9 (a) as per the Mandi Board qua the experience regarding collection of the Mandi Board instructions must have an experience of collecting user charges/parking fees from various Government/Semi- (PSUs) and the same was required 02 years (upto December 31, 2025). The said Experience Certificate attached by the respondent No.4 to its technical bid is neither for is it for a period of last 02 years for the sake of arguments that contracts contracts for collection of user charges/parking fees by retail and other vehicles of fruits, vegetables, perusal of the Experience Certificate would not, by any stretch of imagination, can lead to the conclusion that the experience of from Cattle Fair, Rajpura from December 16, 2023 to experience for the last 02 years SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) (upto December 31, 2025). be ignored or treated as superfluous which would be the case if the contention of Mr. Singh, with regard to the time frame for the required experience is accepted. 20. Mr. Singh relied on a decision of co 17, 2016 passed in “ Punjab and others the experience of a partner of a firm is to be counted towards the experience of the firm itself. Since this Court has not opined on that issue, reliance on the said judgment is not present lis. 21. He has also relied on the decision of Apex Court in “ Mandal v. State of Orissa and others contend that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited while reviewing an administrative action. Unless the irrationality, unreasonableness, bias or lawfully, it is not open for the Courts to sit in appeal and decide whether the decision is “sound award of contract is interfere even if there is a procedural prejudice to a tenderer is made out. 22. There is no dispute with regard to the principle that the Courts should be extremely circumspect in judicial review to interfere with an administrative action/decision taken by the executive in tender matters/ commercial projects. However, the Courts are n CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) (upto December 31, 2025). The words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as superfluous which would be the case if the contention of Mr. Singh, with regard to the time frame for the required experience is accepted. Mr. Singh relied on a decision of co 17, 2016 passed in “M/s Danial Masih Satprit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab and others” reported in 2017 (5) RCR (Civil) 382 the experience of a partner of a firm is to be counted towards the experience of the firm itself. Since this Court has not opined on that issue, reliance on the said judgment is not germane for the purpose of adjudication of the He has also relied on the decision of Apex Court in “ Mandal v. State of Orissa and others” reported in contend that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited while reviewing an administrative action. Unless the irrationality, unreasonableness, bias or mala fide lawfully, it is not open for the Courts to sit in appeal and decide whether the sound” or “lawful”. As long as the decision relating to the of contract is bona fide and in public interest, the Court should not interfere even if there is a procedural aberration prejudice to a tenderer is made out. There is no dispute with regard to the principle that the Courts should be extremely circumspect in judicial review to interfere with an administrative action/decision taken by the executive in tender matters/ commercial projects. However, the Courts are n The words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as superfluous which would be the case if the contention of Mr. Singh, with regard to the time frame for the required Mr. Singh relied on a decision of co-ordinate Bench dated May M/s Danial Masih Satprit Singh Bedi v. State of 2017 (5) RCR (Civil) 382, to contend that the experience of a partner of a firm is to be counted towards the experience of the firm itself. Since this Court has not opined on that issue, reliance on for the purpose of adjudication of the He has also relied on the decision of Apex Court in “Jagdish ” reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 to contend that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited while reviewing an administrative action. Unless there is arbitrariness, mala fide, when a decision is made lawfully, it is not open for the Courts to sit in appeal and decide whether the ”. As long as the decision relating to the and in public interest, the Court should not aberration or error in assessment or There is no dispute with regard to the principle that the Courts should be extremely circumspect in judicial review to interfere with an administrative action/decision taken by the executive in tender matters/ commercial projects. However, the Courts are not powerless to interfere SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) when the essential/mandatory terms of the DNIT have been given a gobye by the tendering authority. Once such a course is adopted, it would Courts to form an opinion that the tendering authority has acted arbitrarily, irrationally, unreasonably and with bias and such an action of the State/instrumentalities of the State would be amenable to judicial review. 23. A beneficial reference may be made to a recent decision of Apex Court in “ Parishad and others Court interfered with the executive decision. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 11. does not sit in appeal over the decision of a tendering authority regarding disqualification of bid. Only in cases where such decision is dehors the terms of the NIT or is patently arbitrary would the Court exercise powers of judicial review and set aside such a decision. Xxx” 24. In Anoj Kumar Ag Apex Court held that the respondent No.2 failed to comply with the essential terms of the DNIT by Guarantee for the stipulated period. Therefore, the executive action/ administrative decision merited interference even in tender mattes. A perusal of paragraph 16 of the judgment reiterating the position of law succinctly is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 16. words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous meaning and their necessary significance CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) when the essential/mandatory terms of the DNIT have been given a gobye by the tendering authority. Once such a course is adopted, it would Courts to form an opinion that the tendering authority has acted arbitrarily, tionally, unreasonably and with bias and such an action of the State/instrumentalities of the State would be amenable to judicial review. A beneficial reference may be made to a recent decision of Apex Court in “Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krish Parishad and others” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2323, where the Apex Court interfered with the executive decision. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 11. In tender matters, the Court exercising judicial re does not sit in appeal over the decision of a tendering authority regarding disqualification of bid. Only in cases where such decision is dehors the terms of the NIT or is patently arbitrary would the Court exercise powers of judicial review and set side such a decision. Xxx” In “Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/s Agarwala and others” reported in Apex Court held that the respondent No.2 failed to comply with the essential terms of the DNIT by not providing the Security Deposit/Bank Guarantee for the stipulated period. Therefore, the executive action/ administrative decision merited interference even in tender mattes. A perusal of paragraph 16 of the judgment reiterating the position of law cinctly is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 16. It is clear even on a reading of this judgment that the words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous meaning and their necessary significance when the essential/mandatory terms of the DNIT have been given a gobye by the tendering authority. Once such a course is adopted, it would lead the Courts to form an opinion that the tendering authority has acted arbitrarily, tionally, unreasonably and with bias and such an action of the State/instrumentalities of the State would be amenable to judicial review. A beneficial reference may be made to a recent decision of Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi ” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2323, where the Apex Court interfered with the executive decision. The relevant extract of the said In tender matters, the Court exercising judicial review does not sit in appeal over the decision of a tendering authority regarding disqualification of bid. Only in cases where such decision is dehors the terms of the NIT or is patently arbitrary would the Court exercise powers of judicial review and set Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/s ” reported in (2020) 17 SCCases 577, the Apex Court held that the respondent No.2 failed to comply with the not providing the Security Deposit/Bank Guarantee for the stipulated period. Therefore, the executive action/ administrative decision merited interference even in tender mattes. A perusal of paragraph 16 of the judgment reiterating the position of law It is clear even on a reading of this judgment that the words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous- they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. Given the fact that SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) in the present case, an essential tender condition which had to be strictly complied with was not so complied with, the appellant would have no power to condone lack of such strict compliance. Any such cond present case, would amount to perversity in the understanding or appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which must be interfered with by a constitutional Court 25. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Cour evaluating the technical bid of respondent No.4 to be collection of parking fees and user charges responsive is against the terms and conditions stipulated in the DNIT. Accordingly, the same is quashed and/or set actions taken by the official respondents in favour of respondent No.4 pursuant to the the official respondents are directed to proceed with the issuance of LOA in favour of the eligible tenderer, in accordance with law. 26. With the directions aforesaid, the writ petition being C No.8671 of 2026 is 27. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE MAY 27, 2026 Shalini Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: CWP No.8671 of 2026 (O&M) in the present case, an essential tender condition which had to be strictly complied with was not so complied with, the appellant would have no power to condone lack of such strict compliance. Any such condonation present case, would amount to perversity in the understanding or appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which must be interfered with by a constitutional Court In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Cour evaluating the technical bid of respondent No.4 to be collection of parking fees and user charges responsive is against the terms and conditions stipulated in the DNIT. Accordingly, the same is quashed and/or set actions taken by the official respondents in favour of respondent No.4 pursuant to the said technical evaluation are also set the official respondents are directed to proceed with the issuance of LOA in favour of the eligible tenderer, in accordance with law. With the directions aforesaid, the writ petition being C No.8671 of 2026 is allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 6 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No in the present case, an essential tender condition which had to be strictly complied with was not so complied with, the appellant would have no power to condone lack of such strict onation, as has been done in the present case, would amount to perversity in the understanding or appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which must be interfered with by a constitutional Court.” [Emphasis Supplied] In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that by evaluating the technical bid of respondent No.4 to be of 02(+) years for collection of parking fees and user charges and finding its bid to be responsive is against the terms and conditions stipulated in the DNIT. Accordingly, the same is quashed and/or set-aside. All the consequential actions taken by the official respondents in favour of respondent No.4 said technical evaluation are also set-aside. Consequently, the official respondents are directed to proceed with the issuance of LOA in favour of the eligible tenderer, in accordance with law. With the directions aforesaid, the writ petition being CWP Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document