heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2.1. W.P.No.11071 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:
2.2. W.P.No.11399 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction, declaring Tender Reference No.1074/WDCW/
AL&SNP/EGGS/I/2025 dated 30.03.2025 and subsequent Clause
2.12 of the Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, issued Respondent No. 2,
as arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950, whereby insofar as it
mandates submission of a certificate of grading issued prior to the
date of publication of the tender, and consequently quash the said
Tender Reference No. 1074/WDCW/AL&SNP/EGGS/I2025 dated
30.03.2025 and subsequent clause 2.12 of corrigendum dated
08.04.2025 in its entirety and further direct the Respondents to
suitably modify the Tender conditions to enable fair and equal
participation and pass..."
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
3. Heard Sri E. Madan Moahn Rao, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners
in W.P.No.11071 of 2025.
Sri V.R. Avula, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Madas
Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11399
of 2025.
Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, representing
learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare,
on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions.
4. Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.No.11071 of 2025, submitted that the petitioners are
farmers and they are in the business of poultry farm, including the
activity of procurement of Eggs. While so, respondent No.2 floated a
State-level Zonal Tender, vide Tender No.585922 dated 30.03.2025, for
procurement and supply of Eggs (Hen) as per the AGMARK certification
and other specifications mentioned therein, for a period of one year
(April 2025 to March 2026), for supply to the beneficiaries under the
Arogya Lakshmi Program and Supplementary Nutrition Program for
Zones-I to VII (except Hyderabad District), and the delivery of Eggs was
to all the Anganwadi Centres under the Department of Women
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
Development and Child Welfare in the State of Telangana. It was further
submitted that the last date for submission of the bid was 10.04.2025.
While the things thus, respondent No.2 issued a Corrigendum on
08.04.2025, duly extending the last date for submission of online bids
until 15.04.2025, and the eligibility/tender qualifying conditions have
been substantially changed just before the last date of submission of
tenders.
5. It was further submitted that as per the qualifying condition
number 2.2 of the tender dated 30.03.2025, the tenderer should supply
the Eggs (Hen) as per the AGMARK certificate of authorization for Eggs
(Hen) valid for at least two years prior to the bid submission date, which
was done only to favour some of the tenderers. Further, as per clause
2.12 of Corrigendum, AGMARK certificate should have been issued prior
to the date of issuance of the tender and the said Corrigendum has been
issued only to eliminate many participants like the petitioners, with a
view to favour those who have obtained the said certificate prior to the
issuance of the tender. There is no logic, reasoning or justification for
restricting the participants who have obtained the AGMARK certificate
after the issuance of the tender, hence, the same is arbitrary, effected
biases and tainted with mala fides.
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
6. It was further submitted that the Corrigendum, though deletes
that condition of having the AGMARK replica serial number,
specification to submit the AGMARK certification is nothing but
retaining the original condition of having the AGMARK certificate, and
the said condition has been imposed only to favour the eight persons
who have obtained the AGMARK replica serial number prior to
insurance of the tender, which condition has been prescribed in
connivance with the said eight eligible persons. Further, the
Corrigendum for tender condition, i.e., Clause 2.12, eliminating or
deleting the condition for obtaining the AGMARK certificate from the
District Agricultural Marketing Officer is arbitrary, and the said
condition has been prescribed only to eliminate the petitioner and other
genuine tenderers. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel for these
petitioners prayed this Court to set aside the tender conditions, more
particularly, condition Nos.2 and 2.12. Learned Senior Counsel relied
on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty
v. The International Airport Authority of India and others 1 and
Gas Authority of India Limited v. Indian Petrochemicals
Corporation Limited and others 2.
1 AIR 1979 SC 1628
2 (2023) 3 SCC 629
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
7. Sri V.R. Avula, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.11399 of 2025, submitted that the petitioners herein possess all
the necessary qualifications, infrastructure, technical capacity and
supply capabilities required to participate in the tender process. The
petitioners herein are established poultry farmers engaged in supplying
quality Eggs on a large scale and have also applied for AGMARK replica
serial numbers, which is a mandatory step before obtaining the
Certificate of Grading under the Agricultural Produce (Grading and
Marking) Act and Rules. It was further submitted that the requirement
of submission of a certificate of grading dated prior to the issuance of
the tender is legally and practically impossible, as no such certificate
can be obtained without the allotment of an AGMARK replica serial
number, which in itself is cumbersome and a time taking process.
Furthermore, the Corrigendum removed the original requirement to
furnish the replica number, while paradoxically insisting on the
certificate that is contingent on it. This clause unfairly restricts
participation to only those who already possess such a certificate,
excluding otherwise capable and qualified suppliers, who are technically
and logistically capable of supplying Eggs as per the AGMARK standards
but could not have secured a certificate in advance of the tender notice.
Therefore, by creating a classification that discriminates new or first-
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
time bidders or prospective bidders, the Corrigendum clause fails the
test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no
rational nexus between the objective of ensuring quality AGMARK
certified supply and insisting on retrospective possession of the
certificate. Further, the Corrigendum fails to specify how a tenderer can
obtain a valid certificate of grading without the AGMARK replica serial
number. This lack of clarity results in procedural ambiguity, denying
potential bidders a fair opportunity to participate in the tender.
8. It was further submitted that the Corrigendum to Clause 2.12 is
not merely arbitrary, but also maliciously designed to favour a select
few, thereby, defeating the core principles of fairness and competition in
public procurement. Out of almost 800 poultry farmers in the State of
Telangana, only 8 possess the AGMARK replica serial number, which is
a prerequisite for obtaining the certificate of grading as per AGMARK
specifications. It was further submitted that out of these 8, 6 poultry
farmers have already participated in the previous tender and were
declared successful, and it is these 6 participants who appear to have
influenced the tendering authority to introduce the present
Corrigendum clause, with a clear intention to exclude the petitioners
and all other eligible poultry farmers, despite their technical capability.
The removal of the clause requiring the AGMARK replica serial number
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
from Clause 3, combined with the retrospective requirement of an
AGMARK certificate of grading, is a deliberate act of manipulation
designed to create an artificial eligibility barrier, ensuring that only
those 6-8 suppliers can qualify. This clearly violates the principles of
fair play, level playing field and equal opportunity in public tenders, and
is tainted with bias and malafides. Such restrictive and targeted tender
conditions are a colourable exercise of power and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the conditions
introduced through the Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025 are specifically
tailor-made with a malafide intent by the respondents, with the objective
of excluding the vast majority of poultry farmers in Telangana and
favouring a small cartel of 6-8 suppliers, who have already been
supplying Eggs under the previous tenders. It was further submitted
that the 2022-Tender permitted the certificate of grading to be obtained
from the District Marketing Officer or any authorized person under the
Act. However, the 2025-Tender conditions restrict issuance of certificate
of grading only to the Director of Marketing and Inspection or authorized
person, and mandates that such certificate must be dated prior to the
publication of the tender, which is highly arbitrary. This constant
shifting of tender conditions from year to year, without any rational
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
basis or uniform policy, reflects a clear attempt to manipulate eligibility
criteria to favour a closed group of suppliers while denying fair
opportunity to all others. Such conduct runs contrary to the
fundamental principles of fair play and competitive public procurement.
10. It was further submitted that the present tender dated 30.03.2025
was initially notified on 29.03.2025 and was subsequently modified
through a Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025. As per the tender schedule,
the last date for submission of bids is 15.04.2025, effectively giving the
petitioners only 7 days from the date of the Corrigendum to comply with
the revised eligibility criteria and submit their tender applications. Out
of these 7 days, only two were working days, owing to public holidays
and weekends. This left the petitioners with grossly insufficient time to
complete the formalities, including procuring the certificate of grading
from the competent authority, collecting other required documents and
clearances and completing the online/offline submission process as per
tender norms.
11. It was further submitted that W.P.No.43886 of 2022 and other
connected matters were filed before this Court challenging Tender
Reference No.3347/SNP/2022 dated 21.11.2022, issued by Respondent
No.2, but these writ petitions and a subsequently writ appeal vide
W.A.No.185 of 2023, were dismissed, primarily on the ground that there
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
were no procedural irregularities or violation of tender conditions at that
point of time. However, the present challenge relates to a new
Corrigendum which has substantially altered the tender conditions,
particularly Clause 2.12, in a manner that is exclusionary, arbitrary,
and mala fide, as detailed in the previous grounds. Therefore, learned
Senior Counsel prayed this Court to set aside the tender dated
30.03.2025 and the subsequent clauses issued in the Corrigendum
dated 08.04.2025, with a direction to the respondents to modify the
tender conditions. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamadhenu
Cattle Feed Industries 3.
12. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondents submitted that both writ petitions are misconceived, devoid
of merits, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It was contended
that the allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, and mala fides in
framing the tender conditions are baseless and unsubstantiated. It was
submitted that Department has notified a state-level Zonal Tender,
which pertains to supply of AGMARK-graded Eggs to the highly sensitive
beneficiaries, i.e., children aged between 7 months and 6 years, and
pregnant and lactating women, under the Supplementary Nutrition
3 (1993) 1 SCC 71
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
Program and the Arogya Lakshmi Scheme. Hence, the strictest quality
control and prior grading experience is justified. The said Tender was
floated through e-procurement portal of the Government of Telangana
on 30.03.2025, duly notifying the last date for submission of bid as
10.04.2025. Subsequently, a Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025 was
issued, duly extending the period for closing of bid submission until
15.05.2025.
13. It was further submitted that the petitioners' claims of mala fide
are unsubstantiated and speculative, and that only to ensure the state-
wide participation, the Department, duly adhering to the standards
given to the sensitive nature of the beneficiaries, issued the
Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025. The said Corrigendum did not
introduce any arbitrary or exclusionary conditions, rather, it relaxed the
original tender clause by removing the requirement of AGMARK
certification for a continuous period of two years, and permitted
submission of a valid AGMARK certificate as on the date of issuance of
the tender, thereby, widening the pool of eligible bidders. The
specification for insisting upon the certificate of grading prior to the
issuance of the tender was to allow the suppliers with proven capacity,
infrastructure, compliance and experience in the supply of graded Eggs,
given the sensitive nature of the beneficiaries, and any compromise on
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
these standards would defeat the very purpose of the program and pose
serious public health risks.
14. It was further submitted that the 2022-Tender provisionally
permitted certificates either from the District Marketing Officers or the
Directorate of Marketing and Inspection or authorized person, which
was in the form of a transitional measure during AGMARK certification
implementation. However, considering the infrastructural facilities, the
current 2025-Tender mandates the certificates from the Directorate of
Marketing and Inspection (the statutory authority under the AGMARK
Act). As such, there is no change of condition, rather, the Department
specifically insisted for certificate of grading of Eggs for ensuring the
quality of Eggs supplied to the Anganwadi Centres. Further, the
removal of the explicit requirement for submission of the replica serial
number did not eliminate the need for a certificate of grading, as the
said certificate necessitates the compliance of the underlying procedural
steps including the issuance of replica. Thus, the Corrigendum clarified
that experience in grading remains an essential eligibility criterion under
Clause 2.12, aligning with the objective of ensuring consistent quality
and reliability of Eggs supplied to Anganwadi Centres.
15. It was further contended that the requirement for submission of a
valid certificate of grading is neither arbitrary nor impossible, as the
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
firms which have already obtained a license two years ago, would have
taken up the process for obtaining the same, clearly involving the
procurement of AGMARK replica serial number, certificate of grading
from the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection or an authorized
person of Marketing and Inspection. Thus, the said condition is clearly
achievable and, the Firms obtaining an AGMARK license in 2022 would
have done grading of Eggs at any time. However, the petitioners have
not chosen to pursue grading of Eggs for the reasons best known to
them. The Department has consistently maintained the grading
requirement since 2022, and the same was implemented based on the
recommendation of the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, the
statutory authority under the AGMARK Act. It was also submitted that
two the petitioners in W.P.No.11399 of 2025 have already participated in
the earlier 2022-Tender, and they were fully aware of the terms and
conditions on AGMARK certification and grading. However, despite the
same, they failed to pursue grading of their Eggs in the last two years,
due to which, they would not be eligible to the present tender.
16. It was further submitted that the tender conditions were framed in
the public interest, with an objective of selecting the suppliers, who
possess the proven capacity, infrastructure, regulatory compliance, and
grading experience. However, the petitioners' inability to qualify under
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
these conditions is purely due to their own shortcomings and due to any
alleged illegality or mala fide intent on the part of the respondents. It is
once again submitted that the quality of Eggs is of paramount
importance and any deviation of the standards would defeat the very
purpose of the programs and pose a serious risk to public health
Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petitions. In
support of his submissions/contentions, the learned Advocate General
relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Silppi
Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and another 4 and a
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nomula Poultry Farm v.
State of Telangana and others 5.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this
Court is of the view that the present writ petitions revolve around the
validity and reasonableness of the tender conditions, specifically
Clauses 2.2 and 2.12, framed under Tender Notification No.585922
dated 30.03.2025, which has been floated by the Department of Women
Development and Child Welfare, for supply of Eggs (Hen) to beneficiaries
under the Arogya Lakshmi Program and Supplementary Nutrition
Program. It is relevant to refer the aforesaid conditions, which are
extracted hereunder:
4 (2020) 16 SCC 489
5 2023 SCC OnLine TS 1241
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
"Clause 2.2: The tenderer should supply eggs (hen) as per AGMARK
specifications as specified in Annexure - 1 of the tender document. The
tenderer should possess AGMARK certificate of Authorization for eggs
(hen), and the AGMARK Certificate valid for at least two years prior to
the bid submission date. A copy of the valid AGMARK Certificate must
be enclosed with the bid.
Clause 2.12: The tenderer should have technical capabilities for supply
of eggs of at least 40% of tendered quantity of one month in a year in
the particular zone, for last two financial years, including current year
with AGMARK replica serial numbers and grading as per AGMARK
specification and marking. In proof of this, the tenderer should submit
a copy of certificate of grading issued by Director of Marketing and
Inspection as per Agriculture Produce (Grading & Marketing) Act and
Rules or authorized person of Marketing and Inspection."
18. Subsequently, a Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025 was issued, duly
extending the last date for submission of bid, from 10.04.2025 to
15.04.2025, and in the said Corrigendum, tender condition Nos.2.2 and
2.12 were slightly modified, and the same are extracted hereunder:
"Corrigendum to clause 2.2: The tenderer should supply eggs (hen) as
per AGMARK specifications as specified in Annexure-1 of the tender
document. The tenderer should possess AGMARK Certificate of
authorization for eggs (hen). AGMARK Certificate valid as on date
should be enclosed with the bid.
Corrigendum to clause 2.12: The tenderer should have technical
capabilities for supply of eggs of atleast 40% of tendered quantity in the
particular zone as per AGMARK specification and marking. In proof of
this, the tenderer should submit a copy of certificate of grading issued
prior to the date of publishing the tender by Director of Marketing and
Inspection as per Agriculture Produce (Grading & Marketing) Act and
Rules or authorized person of Marketing and Inspection."
19. The petitioners herein challenge the aforesaid conditions on the
ground that they are arbitrary, retrospective in effect, and were tailored-
made to exclude the petitioners and otherwise eligible suppliers,
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
thereby, allegedly violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and
thus, attributing mala fides on the part of the respondents. In this
context, reliance had been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), wherein, it was held that in
matters of awarding contracts, the public authorities must act fairly and
without arbitrariness, in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, so as to ensure transparency and equal opportunity to all the
participants. It was also held that the State cannot act arbitrarily or
indulge in favoritism. The Hon'ble Apex Court struck down the award of
contract to a party who did not meet the original eligibility conditions
prescribed in the tender, holding that the authority had selectively
relaxed the said conditions for the said party.
20. Similarly, in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the contractual clauses, which are
found to be arbitrary, unfair, or discriminatory, can be subjected to
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was also held
that public procurement must be undertaken in a transparent and fair
manner, and that any deviation from the established criteria, without a
justification, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
21. In the present case, as can be seen from the record, there is no
relaxation of a condition/conditions for an individual bidder. In fact,
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
even before the last date of submission of the bid, i.e., 10.04.2025, the
Department issued a Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, extending the last
date for submission of bid to 15.04.2025, duly relaxing the original
mandatory requirement of possessing an AGMARK certificate, valid for
at least two years prior to the submission of bid, and required the
tenderers to possess only a valid certificate as on the date of issuance of
the tender. As such, this modification broadens the eligibility criteria
and increases the pool of tenderers. Hence, the said conditions cannot
be construed as restrictive, exclusionary or tailor-made for an alleged
cartel of suppliers. Therefore, the judgments in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., are
distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case.
22. Further, in M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that while the highest tenderer possesses no
absolute right to acceptance, the State and its instrumentalities are
bound by the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, and that the
power to reject tenders must be exercised reasonably, based on valid
justifications. It was also held that the said action must align with the
constitutional mandate against arbitrary state action under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
23. The said case revolves around the arbitrary rejection during post-
bid evaluation. However, in the case on hand, the petitioners are
challenging the pre-bid eligibility conditions, alleging arbitrariness.
Therefore, the said judgment is also of no avail to the petitioners.
24. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly
held that judicial review in tender matters is equivalent to judicial
restraint in these matters. What is reviewed is not the decision itself but
the manner in which it was made. A writ Court does not have the
expertise to correct such decisions by substituting its own decision for
the decision of the authority. This has clearly been held in Tata
Cellular v. Union of India 6, at paragraph 94, which reads as under:
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely
reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative action. If a review of the administrative decision is
permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the
necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to
judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of
contract. ... More often than not, such decisions are made
qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other
words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an
administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or
6 (1994) 6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only
be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but
must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by
mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative
burden on the administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditure."
(emphasis in original)
25. Further, the position of law has been succinctly summed up in
Tata Cellular (supra), wherein, it was famously opined that:
"77. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a
particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of
that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which
those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act
fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon
which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial
review can be classified as under:
(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand
correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and
must give effect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness,
Procedural impropriety."
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Silppi Constructions Contractors
(supra), has also categorically held that the power of judicial review in
matters of government contracts and tenders is limited, and that the
Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the evaluation process or the
terms and conditions of a tender, unless there is an evidence of
arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, bias, or procedural infirmity in
the decision-making process. It was also held that the tender issuing
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
authority issuing is considered the best judge of its requirements. The
relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-
bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala
fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has
cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of
restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in
contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to
interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of
arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One
must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete
with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private
parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt,
the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be
exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must
realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in
commercial matters can 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. As laid down in the
judgments cited above 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
will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.
20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to
above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for
overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in
matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts
should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is
totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court
of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that
the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements
and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The
authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the
tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to
be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the
interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only
interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or
perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present
case.
...
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
25. That brings us to the most contentious issue as to whether the
learned Single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the
appellate orders were bad since they were without reasons. We must
remember that we are dealing with purely administrative decisions.
These are in the realm of contract. While rejecting the tender the
person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give
reasons even if it be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution. These decisions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial.
If reasons are to be given at every stage, then the commercial
activities of the State would come to a grinding halt. The State must
be given sufficient leeway in this regard. Respondents 1 and 2 were
entitled to give reasons in the counter to the writ petition which they
have done."
27. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in
Nomula Poultry Farm (supra), and the relevant portion of the said
decision is extracted hereunder:
"35. We are in agreement with the contention of Mr. P. Sri. Raghu
Ram, learned Senior Counsel that terms of the tender are within
the realm of contract and it is not for the courts to lay down what
should be the terms and conditions of a contract. This position has
been well settled by the Supreme Court in TATA Cellular v. Union of
India3 as well as in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of
Karnataka4 wherein Supreme Court has specifically held that court
should not interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the
Government because it feels that some other terms would have
been better. Learned Single Judge also noted that sufficient
number of bids were received pursuant to the tender reference.
Therefore, it was not that certain impossible conditions were
insisted upon by the tendering authority. Merely because the
conditions were perceived to be harsh on the appellants would not
render the conditions to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Following the
earlier decision of the Division Bench, learned Single Judge came to
the conclusion that it is not open for the appellants to question the
terms and conditions of the tender. Therefore, he dismissed the writ
petition. Though learned Single Judge did not specifically render a
finding as to the second issue, we find that from paragraph 13
onwards of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, both the
issues were simultaneously deliberated upon by the learned Single
Judge. It is not that respondent No. 2 had made a deliberate
deviation from the Government memo dated 09.12.2014 which laid
down guidelines for procurement of eggs under Arogya Lakshmi
and other programmes. Respondent No. 2 had examined the
procedure followed during the last eight years in terms of the memo
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
dated 09.12.2014 and after examining the same and the report of
the team which had studied the best practices in other States
submitted proposal to the State Government for a centralized
tender system for procurement of eggs to ensure uniformity in
quality. Respondent No. 2 had also proposed to allow egg traders to
participate in the tendering, besides insisting upon quality
certification like AGMARK. From the Government approval dated
13.10.2022, it is seen that the State Government did not accept the
centralized tendering proposal. Instead the State Government
directed that tender should be floated zone wise dividing the State
into over all seven zones. Thus, instead of calling for tenders project
wise, the decision was taken to float the tenders zone wise. Further,
Government did not accept the recommendation of respondent No.
2 to allow egg traders to participate in the tender by limiting the
tenderers only to poultry farmers of the State as per existing
system. However, Government agreed that there should be quality
specification of the supplied eggs including AGMARK certification.
36. We see no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the tender
conditions insisted upon by respondent No. 2 in the tender
reference dated 21.11.2022 to warrant interference."
28. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the requirement of a prior AGMARK certification
and grading experience is a technical and policy decision that does not
warrant interference of this Court. Further, as held supra, this Court
finds no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action of the
respondents in issuing the impugned tender and its subsequent
corrigendum. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present cases,
and therefore, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
29. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
PK, J
W.P.Nos.11071 & 11399 of 2025
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions,
shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Date: 02.05.2025.
GSP
