Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S. Gap Enterprises vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52959
1 WP-40571-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40571 of 2025
M/S. GAP ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Nair, Senior Advocate with Shri Mihir Lunawat - Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
1. Petitioners impugn certain conditions in the tender issued by the Directorate
of Public Instructions M.P. Government inviting bids for class room furniture for
schools of Madhya Pradesh. Challenge in the subject petition is to Clause 3, 4 and
5 of Section -V of the notice inviting tender which reads as under:-
" 3. Past Performance: (As per tender Condition)
(i) The Bidder should have experience of successfully completing similar
nature of work (Supply of Furniture) in any Central. Government/State
Government/PSU/ Government Educational Institute in last four financial years
(2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 &2024-25) of value:
a- For Large/Medium Enterprises: Single Contract of 50 Crore or Two
Contracts of 30 Crores each or Three Contracts of 25Crores each or should
have supplied items costing not less than Rs.100 Crores in any of the preceding
four financial years(2021-22, 2022-23, 2023- 24 & 2024-25). To Validate it
Work Order (with clearly Define the value of Furniture) and completion
certificate/ CRAC must be uploaded.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52959
2 WP-40571-2025
b- For MSE's of Madhya Pradesh: The bidder must have supplied furniture
items of value not less than Rs. 10.0 Crore in any of the preceding last four
financial years (2021-22, 2022- 23, 2023-24& 2024-25). To Validate it Work
Order (with clearly Define the value of Furniture) and completion certificate/
CRAC must be. uploaded.
4. financial Criteria
Average Annual Turnover of the bidder entity (Average of any three
consecutive financial years) i.e. 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 & 2024-25 should
not be less than Rs 400 Crores - for Large Enterprises, Rs 100 Crores for
Medium Enterprises and 10 Crores for Micro. and Small Enterprises of M.P.
5. Certifications
i. 1SO 9001:2015, ISO 14001:2015, ISO 45001:2018, ISO 50001:2018,
certifying agencies of ISO should be listed with "NABCB" ("National
Accreditation Board for Certifying Bodies")
ii. AlOTA in Educational Furniture Range
iii -Green Pro Certificate by CII
iv.| BIFMA Membership
v. IGBC Membership
vi. . Green Co by CII /Green Guard by UL"
2. Insofar as Clause 3 & 4 are concerned, the challenge is with the
eligibility criteria prescribed in respect of past performance for MSEs of
Madhya Pradesh is that the bidder should have supplied furniture of item of
value not less than 10 Crores in any of the preceding last 4 financial years. In
respect of financial criteria, the annual turn over of the bidder in any of the
three consecutive financial years is prescribed as more than 400 Crores for
Large Enterprises, 100 Crores for Medium Enterpises and 10 Crores for
Micro and Small Enterprises.
3. Learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners do
not satisfy the criteria of past performance as well as financial criteria of 10
Crores. He submits that by prescribing a high value of 10 crores the
respondents have trying to favour big players and have not created a level
playing field.
4. Copy of the representations filed by the petitioners show that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52959
3 WP-40571-2025
petitioners have categorically admitted that petitioners do not meet the
requisite criteria of 10 Crores. As per petitioners, the petitioners have
average annual turnover of Rs.8 Crores as against the required turnover of 10
Crores and in past experience they only have the work experience of 1.30
Crores which is 10% of the prescribed condition.
5. The tender value in the instant case is 250 Crores for Large
Enterprises. The financial criteria has been fixed at Rs.400 Crores for large
enterprises and 100 crores for Medium enterprises and only 10 Crores for
Micro and Small Enterprises of Madhya Pradesh. Insofar as the past
experience the value of executed contract has been fixed as Rs.10 Crores in
any of the preceding four financial years which is about 4% of the tender
value.
6. It is not the case of the petitioners that the tender conditions have
been prescribed in a manner that it completely ousts the Micro and Small
Enterprises or no benefit is being granted to them. We noted that insofar as
the past performance criteria is concerned, the criteria for MSEs has been
kept at 20% of what has been kept for L arge/Medium Enterprises i.e. 10
Crores for MSEs viz a viz 50 Crores for Large and Medium Enterprises and
in financial criteria it has been kept at 2.5% of Large Enterprises. For Large
Enterprises average annual turn over financial criteria has been prescribed as
400 Crores and for Micro and Small Enterprises only 10 Crores. We are of
the view that adequate relaxations have been granted in the subject tender
for Small and Medium Enterprises. Just because petitioners do not even
clarify the prescribed eligibility criteria and the financial criteria, does not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52959
4 WP-40571-2025
implies that respondents have not created a level playing field. As noticed
above sufficient relaxation has been prescribed in the tender for MSEs.
7. Further the challenge in the Clause 5 is that there is a requirement
to provide a certificate from some foreign entities and it is very expensive to
obtain such a certificate. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners is
misplaced for a reason that there are six different categories of certificate
which have been prescribed including certificate from a body duly accredited
by NABCB (National Accreditation Board for Certifying Bodies) which is
an Indian Institute besides other institutes which are national as mentioned in
Clause 5. The contention of the petitioners that obtaining a certificate from
an American Trade Association is not sustantiated from mere reading of
Clause 5 of the tender document. Even otherwise as noticed
hereinabove, petitioners do not satisfy the financial and other eligibility
criteria for the tender.
8. Reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the petitioners on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs. State
of Chhattisgarh and Another, 2025 INSC 1182 to contend that the High
Court can interfere if the tender does not create a level playing field, is
misplaced for the reason that in the Vinishma Technologies (supra) the State
of Chhattisgarh had decided to oust all manufacturers who were outside the
State of Chhattisgarh and in those circumstances the Supreme Court held that
the objects of public procurement is to secure quality goods and services for
the benefit of the exchequer and said object could be achieved by requiring
the bidders to demonstrate financial capacity, technical experience and past
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52959
5 WP-40571-2025
performance in contracts of similar nature regardless of place of
performance of the contract and to confine the eligibility to participate in the
tender within one State was irrational and dis-proportionate to the goal of
ensuring effective delivery of the subject product. The Supreme Court further
held that such a restriction could not be justified as reasonable within the
meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the
Supreme Court struck down the tender condition which as noticed by the
Supreme Court, excluded competent and experience suppliers who had
executed contracts of far greater magnitude in other States or for the Central
Government departments from participating in the tender. In these
circumstances that the Supreme Court held that the State of Chhattisgarh had
not created a level playing field. Clearly the said judgment is not applicable
to the facts of the present case.
9. In view of the above, we do not find that the past performance
condition financial criteria or certification condition prescribed in the tender
are unreasonable or warrant any interference.
10. We find no merit in the petition, the petition is consequently
dismissed.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
VPA
