Date of reserved for orders : 02.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 11.09.2026 Date of uploading : 11.09.2026 APHC010416852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22462 of 2026 Between: 1. ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, WORLD TRADE TOWER, BARAKHAMBHA LANE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. BOGI VIJAYA PRASANNA, S/O. BOGI ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SENIOR MANAGER, R/O. 37/1, DR. S. KUMAR LAYOUT, 0PP. ST. JUDE'S CHURCH NAGANNAPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH, MARUTHISEVANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560033. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIAECI, REP. BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER AND 2 VS,J WP_22462_2026 E.O. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, 5TH BUILDING, A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (ELECTIONS) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased togrant a direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.2 in incorporating the conditions at Serial No. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Section B.1 (Pre-Qualification Criteria), and the corresponding/mirrored criteria vide conditions at Serial No. 2,3 and 4 and the Financial Net Worth criterion of Section B.2 (Technical Qualification Criteria) and the scoring criterion for ownership of a monitoring station in two seismic zones vide Tender Notice No. 397/Elecs.B/A1/2026, dated 11.07.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, apart from being violative of the guidelines as prescribed by the Respondent No.1 vide Letter No. 23/EPIC Security/2021-ERS dated 18.01.2022 and Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the above impugned conditions in Tender Notice No. 397/Elecs.B/A1/2026, dated 11.07.2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender Notice No. 397/Elecs.B/A1/2026, thereby restraining the Respondent No. 2 from finalizing the bids in accordance with impugned conditions in the Tender Notice No. 397/Elecs.B/A1/2026 , pending disposal of the Writ Petition. 3 VS,J WP_22462_2026 IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the operation of conditions incorporated by Respondent No.2 at Serial No. 2, 3,4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Section B.1 (Pre-Qualification Criteria), and the corresponding/mirrored criteria vide conditions at Serial No. 2, 3 and 4 and the Financial Net Worth criterion of Section B.2 (Technical Qualification Criteria) and the scoring criterion for ownership of a monitoring station in two seismic zones vide Tender Notice No. 397/Elecs.B/A1/2026, dated 11.07.2026, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI SARAN CHODISETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D S SIVADARSHAN 2. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: 4 VS,J WP_22462_2026 ORDER: 1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to grant a direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.2 in incorporating the conditions at Serial No.2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Section B 1 (Pre-Qualification Criteria), and the corresponding/mirrored criteria vide conditions at Serial No.2, 3 and 4 and the Financial Net Worth criterion of Section B.2 (Technical Qualification Criteria) and the scoring criterion for ownership of a monitoring station in two seismic zones vide Tender Notice No.397/Elecs.B/A1/2026, dated 11.07.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, apart from being violative of the guidelines as prescribed by the Respondent No.1 vide Letter No.23/EPIC Security/2021-ERS dated 18.01.2022 and Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the above impugned conditions in Tender Notice No.397/Elecs. B/A1/2026 dated 11.07.2026.….” 2) The brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner Company i.e., M/s Rosmerta Technologies Limited, is a company incorporated in 2006 under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 4th Floor, World Trade Tower, Barakhambha Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001, and is one of India’s leading technology-driven secure identity solution providers, operating one of the country's largest PCI-compliant smart card manufacturing facilities. Further, the Petitioner Company has manufactured and personalized more than 180 million Driving License and Registration Certificate cards across India and presently 5 VS,J WP_22462_2026 commands nearly 50% market share in the DL/RC segment, besides having executed numerous other Government identity projects including PDS Smart Cards, EPIC Cards, Health Cards, Aadhaar- linked credentials and Ayushman Cards, and holds Visa, MasterCard and RuPay certifications for secure card manufacturing. 3) It is the further case of the petitioner that it has recently been awarded and executed contracts by the Governments of Rajasthan and Andaman & Nicobar for printing and supply of PVC EPIC Cards, reaffirming its technical competence and execution capability in projects identical to the subject-matter of the impugned Tender Document. 4) Respondent No.1 herein has issued Guidelines dated 18.01.2022 (Letter No.23/EPIC Security/2021-ERS) which require the selection of a "PVC Card Manufacturer and Security Printer" having in-house printing on PVC sheets with security features and personalization capability, and which direct Chief Electoral Officers to empanel card and hologram printers "currently supplying Visa Card or Master Card or RuPay or RBI or IBA or PVC Aadhaar Card" with ISO 27001/ISO 9001 certification, treating each of the foregoing as an alternative, independently sufficient indicator of capability, and not as a cumulative checklist. The aforementioned Guidelines prescribes the security specifications and manufacturing standards for EPIC cards, but does not mandate that a bidder hold RBI/IBA empanelment cumulatively with Master Card, Visa and RuPay certification, nor do they mandate any of the other restrictive eligibility and technical evaluation conditions impugned herein. 6 VS,J WP_22462_2026 5) Respondent No.2 herein issued impugned RFP to Tender Notice No.397/Elecs.B/A1/2026 on 11.07.2026, for Printing & Supply of PVC EPIC Cards with Holograms. Upon a careful examination of the Tender Document, the Petitioner Company noticed several conditions incorporated therein, which were arbitrary, tailor-made, and contrary to the settled principles, fairness, transparency and equal opportunity. It is clearly evident that the above conditions were incorporated to favour a particular bidder and exclude otherwise eligible and competent participants. The aforementioned arbitrary and unreasonable conditions in the impugned Tender Document are elaborated as hereunder: (1) The condition at Serial No. 2 of Section B.1 of the impugned Tender Document requires the bidder to be currently empanelled under RBI/IBA cumulatively with holding MasterCard/Visa/RuPay Certification, which is completely contrary to the above Guidelines dated 18.01.2022 issued by Respondent No. 1, which direct empanelment of printers "currently supplying Visa Card or Master Card or RuPay or RBI or IBA or PVC Aadhaar Card", treating each as an alternative, independently sufficient indicator of secure card manufacturing capability, not as a cumulative checklist. (2) The condition at Serial No.3 of Section B.1 of the impugned Tender Document restricts the eligible experience to the supply of EPIC or Aadhaar PVC cards to Respondent No.1 commission, excluding comparable superior experience in Driving Licenses, Registration Certificates, PAN Cards and 7 VS,J WP_22462_2026 other Government-issued secure PVC identity cards, notwithstanding that the Petitioner Company has itself recently been awarded and executed EPIC Card contracts for the Governments of Rajasthan and Andaman & Nicobar. Further, there is no rational basis for making the identity of the procuring client, as opposed to the nature and security standard of the work performed, determinative of eligibility. (3) The condition at Serial No. 4 of Section B.1 of the impugned Tender Document restricts ISO 14298 certification specifically to certification issued by 'Intergraf’, notwithstanding that ISO 14298 is an internationally recognized standard capable of valid certification by any accredited certification body. Further, no technical justification has been furnished by the Respondents for excluding equally qualified bidders holding valid ISO 14298 certification from other accredited bodies. (4) The condition at Serial No.7 of Section B.1 of the impugned Tender Document makes it a pre-requisite for the bidder to hold membership of the Authentication Solution Providers Association (ASPA) and the International Hologram Manufacturers Association (IHMA), and to be certified under TUV-ASPA (formerly HOMAI) Hologram Security Standards, However, the note to the said clause of the impugned Tender Document, expressly permits reliance on a duly certified hologram-supplying agency. The Respondents cannot, having themselves carved out this 8 VS,J WP_22462_2026 very exception, insist in substance on a stricter, self-certification-only standard, including under the mirrored scoring criterion at condition at Serial No. 3 of Section B.2. (5) The condition at Serial No. 8 of Section B.1 of the impugned Tender Document mandates a bidder to have an experience of ₹7.5 Crore or more exclusively in Non-Chip PVC Cards, thereby excluding technically superior Chip- based Smart Card experience. Such a distinction is wholly irrational and contrary to the above Guidelines dated 18.01.2022 issued by Respondent No.1. The said condition bears no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved as the estimated requirement under the impugned Tender Document is only 30 to 50 lakh PVC cards over a period of three years. In any event, the Petitioner Company achieved a turnover of approximately Rs.100 Crore from the manufacture and supply of Chip-based PVC Cards during the preceding three financial years, which exceeds the prescribed eligibility threshold. Further, manufacturing of chip-based smart cards necessarily involves all processes required for a non-chip PVC card including multi-layer PVC construction, security feature integration, hologram hot stamping, secure personalization, quality testing and dispatch and, in addition, involves microprocessor chip embedding, encrypted data storage and more stringent security protocols. A manufacturer capable of producing a technologically more complex chip-based card is, by any 9 VS,J WP_22462_2026 rational measure, more than capable of producing a simpler non-chip card; excluding chip-based card experience does not identify technically competent manufacturers, it excludes them. (6) The condition at Serial No. 9 of Section B.1 of the impugned Tender Document requires the bidder's Financial Net Worth as on 31.03.2026 to be above Rs.30 Crore, certified by a Chartered Accountant, notwithstanding that financial year 2025-2026 closed only on 31.03.2026 and audited financial statements for that year, from which net worth as on that date could properly and reliably be certified, are not ordinarily finalized for several months thereafter. (7) The condition at Serial No.11 of Section B.1 of the impugned Tender Document requires the bidder to have filed Income Tax Returns for financial year 2025-2026 as on the bid submission date, notwithstanding that financial year 2025-2026 closed only on 31.03.2026 and the statutory processes of audit, finalization of accounts and filing of returns for that year extend well beyond any such bid due date, rendering the condition incapable of compliance by any bidder whatsoever. (8) The condition at Serial No.12 of Section B.1 of the impugned Tender Document mandates a Disaster Recovery Monitoring Station owned and operated solely by the bidder in two different seismic zones within India, with 10 VS,J WP_22462_2026 real-time failover, which is excessive and disproportionate for a procurement of the present scale. (9) The condition at Serial No. 2 of Section B.2 of the impugned Tender Document awards marks only for experience in printing and supply of EPIC cards to a State Election Commission. (10) The condition at Serial No. 3 of Section B.2 of the impugned Tender Document links marks to possession of ASPA/IHMA membership and TUV-ASPA certification. (11) The condition at Serial No. 4 of Section B.2 of the impugned Tender Document awards marks solely by reference to Non-Chip PVC card work orders. (12) Further, the condition with respect to Financial Net Worth scoring criterion under Section B.2 awards marks by reference to Net Worth as on 31.03.2026, notwithstanding that financial year 2025-2026 closed only on 31.03.2026 and audited financial statements for that year, from which net worth as on that date could properly and reliably be certified, are not ordinarily finalized for several months thereafter. (13) The condition in relation to "Capability and Profile" criterion under Section B.2 separately awards marks for ownership of a monitoring station in two seismic zones, a condition excessive and disproportionate for a procurement of the present scale. 11 VS,J WP_22462_2026 6) It is contended that the aforementioned conditions in relation to EPIC-only experience, ASPA/IHMA membership, Non-Chip PVC value, Financial Net Worth, and Disaster Recovery respectively has been independently reproduced as a scoring criterion under Section B.1 and B.2 (Technical Qualification Criteria) of the impugned tender document, so that the very same restrictions operate twice over, first, to threaten exclusion of the Petitioner Company at the pre- qualification stage; and again, to deprive the Petitioner Company of technical marks even where it clears pre-qualification, without either application of the said restrictions being independently justified. 7) Pursuant thereto, the petitioner company submitted detailed pre-bid queries to respondent No.2 objecting to the restrictive eligibility and technical evaluation criteria in the impugned Tender Document and further sought for relaxation, in accordance with the Guidelines dated 18.01.2022. Petitioner Company has participated in the Pre-Bid Conference held by Respondent No.2 on 16.07.2026, at which the said objections, among others, were discussed. Consequently, the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 20.07.2026 (Letter No. 397/Elecs.B/A1/2026-5), issued clarifications/ amendments to the impugned Tender Document, wherein most of the requests of the petitioner have been rejected, with the solitary observation "As per RFP", without assigning any technical, reasoned or public-interest justification whatsoever. 8) It is further contended that the petitioner Company addressed a detailed representation dated 24.07.2026 to respondent No. 2, reiterating and elaborating upon each of its objections to the specific clauses in the impugned tender document and further requested to 12 VS,J WP_22462_2026 suitably amend the impugned tender document. Despite the aforementioned representation, the Respondent No. 2 didn't initiate necessary steps towards making the necessary amendments to specific clauses in the impugned Tender Notification. Further, the Respondent No.2 herein only issued a corrigendum dated 27.07.2026, thereby extending the due date with respect to bids from 27.07.2026 to 04.08.2026, without addressing any of the Petitioner's substantive objections. 9) The Petitioner Company was constrained to submit its bid pursuant to the impugned Tender Document on 03.08.2026, within the said extended timeline as per corrigendum dated 27.07.2026, without prejudice to its rights and contentions herein. All the bids, including the petitioner’s bid are pending consideration before the Respondent No.2. 10) It is further case of the petitioner that similar tenders for printing and supply of EPIC cards have been issued by various other States, namely Madhya Pradesh (Tender No MPSEDC/MKT/EC/2022/472), Chhattisgarh (Bid Document dated 04.03.2022), Himachal Pradesh (e-Tender No. SEDC/ST/PVC(EPIC)/2k22-10812 dated 15.03.2022), Nagaland (Bid Document No. ELE/IT-REV/52/2022 dated 21.06.2022), Bihar (Bid Document No. 04 dated 15.08.2025), Maharashtra (RFP No. ELR-2025/CR 38/25/Election-6 dated 22.08.2025) and Rajasthan (Bid Document dated April 2026), wherein the eligibility criteria did not restrict experience to 'Non-Chip PVC Cards' alone, but broadly recognized the experience in the manufacture of PVC cards 13 VS,J WP_22462_2026 generally, without distinguishing between chip-based and non-chip PVC cards. 11) In view of the above, the Petitioner Company herein made multiple attempts to provide clarifications to respondent No. 2 in relation to the eligibility criteria. However, without taking the same into consideration, Respondent No. 2 is proceeding ahead with the subject tender, adversely affecting the Petitioner Company's competitive position in presenting a substantially responsive bid. The above highhanded and hasty actions and conduct of the Respondent No.2, clearly denotes that all the proceedings with respect to the present tender was not done in a legal, fair and transparent manner, and requested to set aside the tender. 12) Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri Sai Saran Chodisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that conditions at Serial Nos.2,3,4,7,8,9,11 and 12 of Section B.1 (Pre-Qualification Criteria) and the corresponding/mirrored criteria vide conditions at Serial No.2, 3, 4 and the Financial Net Worth criterion of Section B.2 (Technical Qualification Criteria) imposes a burden neither contemplated nor required by the very Guidelines dated 18.01.2022, rendering the said conditions arbitrary and without rational nexus to the object of the impugned tender document. The said conditions incorporated in the impugned tender document are anti-competitive and contrary to public interest. Further, when the tender condition designed to favour a particular class of bidders/participants or to eliminate competition is liable to be struck down as an arbitrary exercise of power violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The eligibility condition restricting experience 14 VS,J WP_22462_2026 exclusively to “Non-Chip PVC Cards” represents an unexplained departure from the procurement practice consistently adopted by numerous other States i.e. Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh and Nagaland in January, 2022 and Bihar, Maharashtra and Rajasthan in April, 2026 whose tenders for identical EPIC card procurement recognize experience in manufacture of PVC Cards without distinguishing between chip based and non-chip PVC cards. The complete absence of any disclosed technical justification for incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the tender document, coupled with their cumulative exclusionary effect and their departure from the Guidelines dated 18.01.2022, renders the tender document legally unsustainable and invalid, and requested to allow the writ petition. 13) Sri Avinash Desai, learned Counsel representing, Sri D.S.Siva Darshan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, contended that the conditions incorporated in the tender document are intended to ensure the engagement of competent, technically qualified and suitably experienced vendors, while safeguarding the prescribed standards of quality, security and confidentiality. Accordingly, the States and Union Territories are required to incorporate those conditions in their respective tender documents as the minimum mandatory and fundamental requirements for the selection and engagement of vendors. They do not preclude the competent tendering authority, while implementing the said framework, from prescribing appropriate eligibility and technical criteria in addition to what has been given under the ECI guidelines. Further, the said conditions have been prescribed taking into consideration the mandatory ECI security framework, the sensitive 15 VS,J WP_22462_2026 nature of PVC EPICs, and the technical, financial and operational requirements of the procurement in specific to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The impugned conditions cannot be treated as arbitrary, malafide or tailor made. More importantly, there is no overwhelming public interest in the present matter since the challenge in the writ petition is only on the ground that it does not suit to their individual requirements and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 14) During hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submitted the report of the Tender Evaluation Committee. On perusal of the same, it can be observed that four bidders including the petitioner herein were permitted to proceed to the technical evaluation stage; the specific portion of the said report is as follows; “Although certain bidders have not complied with all of the pre- qualification criteria, the Committee, in the interest of maintaining healthy competition in the procurement, has resolved to permit all four bidders to proceed to the technical evaluation stage. This decision is without prejudice to the pre-qualification findings recorded above, which shall be read together with the technical evaluation at Part B before any award is recommended.” 15) Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that technical bids have already been opened, wherein the petitioner stood unsuccessful and out of four participants, two were declared successful bidders and their financial bids are yet to be opened and in view of the pendency of the present writ petition, they could not proceed further. At that stage, this Court passed the following order on 24.08.2026, which is as follows: 16 VS,J WP_22462_2026 “……....Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that technical bids have already been opened, wherein the petitioner stood unsuccessful and out of four participants, two were declared successful bidders and their financial bids are yet to be opened. In view of the same, there shall be a direction to the respondents to finalize the tenders, however, the same is subject to the result of the writ petition.” 16) Admittedly, respondent No.1 herein has issued Guidelines dated 18.01.2022 (Letter No.23/EPIC Security/2021-ERS) which require the selection of a "PVC Card Manufacturer and Security Printer" having in-house printing on PVC sheets with security features and personalization capability, and which direct Chief Electoral Officers to empanel card and hologram printers "currently supplying Visa Card or Master Card or RuPay or RBI or IBA or PVC Aadhaar Card" with ISO 27001/ISO 9001 certification, treating each of the foregoing as an alternative, independently sufficient indicator of capability, and not as a cumulative checklist. Respondent No.2 herein issued impugned RFP to Tender Notice No.397/Elecs.B/A1/2026 on 11.07.2026, for Printing & Supply of PVC EPIC Cards with Holograms. Upon a careful examination of the Tender Document, the petitioner Company contended that several conditions incorporated therein, which are arbitrary, tailor-made, and contrary to the settled principles, fairness, transparency and equal opportunity. 17) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on “Lakshmi Charan Sen and Ors. Vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Ors.1” in support 1 (1985) 4 SCC 689 17 VS,J WP_22462_2026 of his contentions, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “One of the questions which was debated before us and to which we must now turn, is whether the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers have the force of law under the Acts of 1950 and 1951. There is no provision in either of these Acts which would justify the proposition that the directions given by the Election Commission have the force of law. Election Laws are self-contained codes. One must look to them for identifying the rights and obligations of the parties, whether they are private citizens or public officials. Therefore, in the absence of a provision to that effect, it would not be correct to equate with law, the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers. The Election Commission is, of course, entitled to act ex debito justitiae, in the sense that, it can take steps or direct that steps be taken over and above those which it is under an obligation to take under the law. It is, therefore, entitled to issue directions to the Chief Electoral Officers. Such directions are binding upon the latter but, their violation cannot create rights and obligations unknown to the Election Law.” 18) The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment is not in dispute, but the said judgment is specifically an election-law case and the same is not applicable to the present facts of the case as the present matter is relating to tender process/conditions. 19) Learned counsel representing learned standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the power of judicial review cannot be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes and relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions. 18 VS,J WP_22462_2026 20) In “Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa2” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “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.” 21) In “Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and others3” the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if 2 (2007) 14 SCC 517 3 (2000) 2 SCC 617 19 VS,J WP_22462_2026 it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene.” 22) In “Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Ors.4” the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.” 23) In “N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors.5” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non- performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender 4 (2016) 16 SCC 818 5 (2022) 6 SCC 127 20 VS,J WP_22462_2026 conditions. The writ Petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ Petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ Petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder.” 24) In “Airport Authority of India Vs. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) and Ors.6” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “……….it is further observed that the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere. It is further observed that the courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.” 25) In “Association of Registration Plates Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.7” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract of the nature of ensuring supply of high security registration plates, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities. Unless the action of tendering Authority is found to be malicious and misuse of its statutory powers, tender conditions are unassailable. On intensive examination of tender conditions, we do not find that they violate the equality clause under Article 14 or encroach on fundamental rights of a class of intending tenderer under Article 19 of the Constitution.” 6 AIR 2022 SC 4749 7 (2005) 1 SCC 679 21 VS,J WP_22462_2026 26) The Hon’ble Apex Court sounded a word of caution in another judgment reported as “Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and Others8”, wherein it was held that the Courts must realize their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters could cause. In contracts involving technical issues, the Courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The Courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference would cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. 27) It can be observed from the material available on record that respondent No.1 has issued guidelines dated 18.01.2022, which include the specifications and security parameters stipulated by the Commission which are mandatory in nature and are required to be strictly complied with by all States/Union Territories in the printing and production of PVC EPICs. These conditions are intended to ensure the engagement of competent, technically qualified and suitably experienced vendors, while safeguarding the prescribed standards of quality, security and confidentiality. Accordingly, the States/Union Territories are intended to incorporate certain conditions in their respective tender documents keeping in view their requirement. The aspirants do not preclude the competent tendering 8 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133 22 VS,J WP_22462_2026 authority, while implementing the said framework, from prescribing appropriate eligibility and technical criteria in addition to what has been given under the ECI guidelines. The conditions prescribed in the guidelines are in accordance with the mandatory ECI security framework, the sensitive nature of PVC EPICs, and the technical, financial and operational requirements of the procurement in specific to the State of Andhra Pradesh. 28) Merely the petitioner has recently been awarded and executed similar contracts by the Governments of Rajasthan and Andaman and Nicobar for printing and supply of PVC EPIC Cards, it cannot expect that same conditions would be imposed by the State of Andhra Pradesh also as each and every State can impose some specific conditions in addition to the conditions prescribed by the Election Commission of India, to suit their purpose. 29) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has requested this Court to examine whether alternative qualifications and forms of experience should have been accepted in place of, or in addition to, those stipulated in the tender document. Such an exercise would necessarily require this Court to enter into the technical and commercial domain of the procuring authority, which is impermissible in the limited jurisdiction of judicial review. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned conditions are ex facie irrational, that they have no nexus whatsoever with the object of the tender, or that they were introduced with the specific intention of favouring a particular bidder. 23 VS,J WP_22462_2026 30) Further, finalisation of tenders by the State is administrative decision. The administrative decisions are subject to judicial review Under Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extra ordinary power of judicial review. 31) In “Tata Motors Limited Vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Ors.9” while dealing with the tender process, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind.” 32) Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, 9 AIR 2023 SC 2717 24 VS,J WP_22462_2026 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. 33) If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the Guidelines dated 18.01.2022 do not demonstrate an absolute prohibition against prescribing additional conditions. Moreover, four bidders including the petitioner were permitted to proceed to the technical evaluation stage and that technical bids have already been opened, however, the petitioner stood unsuccessful and out of four participants, two were declared successful bidders and their financial bids are yet to be opened. It is not even the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the tender notification, a single bid was received by the respondents-authorities to help the bidder. In the present case, admittedly, four bidders including the petitioner herein were permitted to proceed to the technical evaluation stage and that technical bids have already been 25 VS,J WP_22462_2026 opened, wherein the petitioner stood unsuccessful and out of four participants, two were declared successful bidders and their financial bids are yet to be opened. Except the petitioner, none other would contend that the conditions are arbitrary. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the conditions imposed in the tender are not arbitrary and irrational as some of the participants fulfilled all the conditions and there are no malafides on the part of the respondents in imposing such conditions. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is stopped to interfere with the tender process. 34) Admittedly, in the present case, impugned tender notification was issued for printing and supply of PVC EPIC cards with Holograms in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said tender relates to printing and supply of PVC EPIC cards with holograms to electors throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. The procurement is directly connected with the discharge of the constitutional and statutory responsibilities of the election authorities and is intended to ensure the timely availability of secure and durable elector identity cards. Having regard to the importance of the procurement and the public interest involved, interference by this Court in the tender process would cause delay in the execution of an important public function. 35) It is well settled that the terms and conditions of a tender are ordinarily within the domain of the authority inviting the tender and that the Court does not sit in appeal over the wisdom, necessity or commercial rationale of such conditions. The authority inviting the tender is the best judge of its requirements and is entitled to prescribe appropriate eligibility criteria having regard to the nature, 26 VS,J WP_22462_2026 magnitude and security requirements of the proposed procurement. Unless the conditions are shown to be patently arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations, the Court ought not to substitute its own assessment for that of the tendering authority. 36) In the present case, as stated by learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that four bidders including the petitioner herein were permitted to proceed to the technical evaluation stage and that technical bids have already been opened, wherein the petitioner stood unsuccessful and out of four participants, two were declared successful bidders and their financial bids are yet to be opened. The said fact establishes that petitioner was afforded opportunity to participate in the tender process along with four other bidders, however, petitioner stood unsuccessful in technical evaluation. 37) Further, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that the action of the technical evaluation committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was mala fide. The interference of this Court in the tender process leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the work for which the State is expected to do. Further, cancellation of tender process would cause additional financial burden on the State. 38) Further, as stated by the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, technical bids have been opened and 27 VS,J WP_22462_2026 financial bids are yet to be opened. As the tender process has already commenced, setting aside individual conditions of the tender would necessarily require the procuring authority to modify the tender conditions after commencement of the process. Such an intervention would cause delay and would affect the procurement process and public interest. In such circumstances, particularly in the absence of any demonstrable arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory provisions, interference by this Court at this stage would not be warranted. 39) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any perversity, patent illegality or irrationality in the tender process. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 40) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 41) Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 11.09.2026 Ksp Whether the order is : Reasoned - Yes Reportable - No