2026:UHC:1982-DB HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 2 0 TH MARCH, 20 2 6 W RI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) NO. 17 8 OF 2 0 2 6 M/ s Mahesh Verma …...Petitioner. Ver su s State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. A.P. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr . Man oj Kum ar Gu pt a, C.J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging stipulation regarding the experience in the Notice Inviting Bid, which lays down that the bidder should have experience of similar contracts having MAF (Manufacture Authorization Form) of HAMS Software in the role of contractor for at least last 05 years prior to the bid submission deadline. The contract is for automation work at automated driving test track in District Almora, Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner- firm is stated to have submitted its bid and now apprehending that it would not be considered as it does not have the said experience, has filed the writ petition challenging the condition above in Clause 1 2026:UHC:1982-DB 2.2(A)(b), which is as : - “A. Qu alificat ion Cr it er ia: a) ……. b) The Bidder should have Experience of similar contracts having MAF (Manufacture Authorization Form) of HAMS Software in the role of contractor for at least the last [ 5)} years prior to the bid submission deadline.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said condition amounts to a restrictive trade practice, as the experience needed in a particular software would restrict the persons eligible for the contract. He submits that it is an open source software of Microsoft and Maruti Suzuki and, indirectly, it would result in extending benefit to these companies to the exclusion of other companies having similar software and also entities who are using other similar software. 4. It is settled that an authority who invites a tender or auction bid is entitled to set out the terms and conditions, which suit its needs and requirements of the work to be performed under the contract. Since the automation work has to be carried out using the software afore-said, which the respondents felt is suitable for meeting their needs and requirements, therefore, the petitioner cannot come forward challenging the said stipulation. 5. We are of the considered opinion that the 2 2026:UHC:1982-DB challenge is wholly baseless and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dated: 20th March, 2026 NI SHANT 3 NISHANT KUMAR Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b3 26, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD19616905 60487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2026.03.23 11:07:25 +05'30'