Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh

2025 INSC 1182 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 24075 of 2025)

VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 26192 of 2025)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 23611 of 2025)

JUDGMENT

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals take exception to orders dated 11.08.2025

and 12.08.2025 passed in three Writ Petitions preferred by

the appellant. The High Court of Chhattisgarh by the said Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.10.06 orders, has repelled the challenge to the impugned tender 15:35:51 IST Reason:

condition contained in three tender notices dated

1 21.07.2025 which were issued for supply of Sports Kits to

the students of Government Primary School, Government

Upper Primary Schools and Government High and Higher

Secondary Schools in the State of Chhattisgarh.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals which lie in a

narrow compass, are as under:

(I) FACTS

4. The appellant is a Company registered under the

Companies Act, 2013 and claims to have experience of

supplying Sports Kits to various Departments of the States

of Bihar, Karnataka, Gujarat and Government of NCT

Delhi. The respondent No. 1 is State of Chhattisgarh

whereas respondent No. 2 is State Project Director,

Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh State Project Office,

Department of School Education, Government of

Chhattisgarh.

5. The Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Scheme

is a Scheme for providing for supplementary nutrition,

immunization and pre-school education to the children,

launched in the year 1975, is a popular flagship program

of the Central Government. The said Scheme provides for

2 the integrated package of services, for the holistic

development of the child and is a centrally sponsored

scheme implemented by State Governments and the Union

Territories. The Scheme is largely funded by the

Government of India.

6. The Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh State Project Office,

Department of School Education, Chhattisgarh published

three tender notices (hereinafter to be referred to as

“impugned tender notices”) on 21.07.2025 through

Government-e-Market Place Portal for supply of Sports Kits

to the students of Primary School, Upper Primary Schools

and High and Higher Secondary Schools run by the State

Government in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Sports Kits

were to be supplied to 5540 cluster resource centres

situated across all 33 districts in the State. The tender

value of the contract was Rs.15.24 crores, Rs.13.08 crores

and Rs.11.49 crores.

7. Section III(A) of the impugned tender notices prescribe

qualification criteria with additional terms and conditions.

The appellant was aggrieved by additional terms and

conditions namely, condition Nos. 1, 4, 11 and 13, which

3 rendered the appellant ineligible for participation in the

impugned tender process. It, therefore, submitted a

representation on 29.07.2025 to the State Project Director,

Samagra Shiksha, School Education Department,

Chhattisgarh. The aforesaid representation failed to evoke

any response. The appellant thereupon filed three writ

petitions, namely, Writ Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025, Writ

Petition (C) No. 4263 of 2025 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4274

of 2025, before the High Court in which validity of the

aforesaid impugned tender conditions was challenged.

8. During the pendency of the writ petition by way of

corrigendum dated 07.08.2025 condition Nos. 1, 11, and

13 were deleted. The Division Bench of the High Court by a

common order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Civil Writ

Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025, Writ Petition (C) No. 4263 of

2025 and by an order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Writ

Petition (C) No. 4274 of 2025, inter alia held that the

impugned eligibility condition namely, condition No. 4 with

regard to past performance is of similar nature and

purpose, as, the condition in Association of Registration

4 Plates v. Union of India and Ors1. It was further held that

respondents have demonstrated that the impugned tender

condition is not unique to the State of Chhattisgarh but is

prevalent in other States such as Gujarat, Assam, Delhi,

Orissa and Jharkhand. It was further found by the High

Court that a contract containing a similar condition, was

awarded to the appellant in the State of Jharkhand. The

High Court repelled the challenge to impugned tender

condition on the ground of discrimination and

unreasonableness.

9. It was further held by the Division Bench that State is

entitled to prescribe the condition in the impugned tender

notices, to ensure that selection of the most capable and

reliable bidder takes place, to execute the public project of

significant scale, sensitivity and public importance. It was

also held that impugned tender condition is neither

violative of Article 14 nor Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution

of India and relates to legitimate object of ensuring

technical competence, financial strength, operational

capacity as well as long term reliability of successful bidder.

1 (2005) 1 SCC 679

5 Accordingly, the writ petitions preferred by the appellant

were dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, these

appeals arise for our consideration.

(II) SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that

High Court has failed to appreciate that decision of this

Court in Association of Registration Plates (supra) has

no application to the obtaining factual matrix of the case

and therefore, erred in placing reliance on the said decision

while deciding the writ petitions. It is further submitted

that the impugned tender condition which prescribes that

bidders must have supplied Sports Kits worth at least

Rs.6.00 crores (cumulative) to State Government agencies

of Chhattisgarh in last 3 financial years is violative of

Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, as it

excludes competent suppliers from outside the State and

discourages wider participation and fosters cartelisation. It

is urged that the impugned tender condition excludes the

appellant from participating in the impugned tender. It is

therefore urged that the impugned common orders are

6 liable to be quashed and set aside and the impugned tender

condition is liable to be struck down.

(III) SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT

11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent No. 2 submitted that the tendering authority is

well within its power to frame the impugned tender

condition. It is further submitted that in view of

geographic/social conditions of State of Chhattisgarh, the

impugned tender condition is incorporated to safeguard

timely delivery, ensure quality compliance and prevent

supply chain disruptions. It is also submitted that

impugned condition is prevalent in other States as well. It

is pointed out that on 21.08.2025, financial bids have

already been opened and the successful bidders have been

identified. It is urged that in case this Court interferes with

the impugned tender process, the consequent re-tendering

would consume a considerable time and substantial

portion of academic year would stand forfeited.

12. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 1 has adopted

the submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 2 and

has submitted that the impugned tender condition has

7 been incorporated with an object to ensure that successful

bidder has the knowledge of the topography of the State of

Chhattisgarh which is a Naxal affected State, so that Sports

Kits could be timely delivered to the children of Government

Schools in the State.

(IV) ANALYSIS

13. We have considered the rival submissions and have

perused the record. For the facility of reference the

impugned tender condition is extracted below :

“(4) Past Performance Restriction :

Bidders must have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs.6.00 crores (cumulative) to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in the last three financial years (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 or 2022- 23, 2023-24, 2024-25).”

14. The solitary question which arises for consideration in

the instant appeals is whether the aforesaid impugned

tender condition meets the test of reasonableness and

fairness and or whether the same constitutes an arbitrary

criteria which excludes the other eligible bidders from

participation thereby violating, the mandate contained in

Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

8

15. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to briefly advert

to contours of judicial review with regard to tender

conditions which are well delineated. A three Judge Bench

of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International

Airport Authority of India & Ors.2, held that discretion of

the Government in granting the largesse, is not unlimited

and the Government cannot give or withhold largesse in its

arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will. It has further been

held that Government cannot without adequate reason

exclude any person from dealing with it or take away

largesse arbitrarily. It also held that activities of the

Government have a public element and therefore there

should be fairness and equality. It is well settled in law that

Government must have free hand in setting the terms of the

tender and the Court cannot strike down the terms of the

tender prescribed by the Authority merely because it feels

some other terms in the tender would have been fairer,

wiser or more logical3. It is equally well settled legal

proposition that in the matter of formulating conditions of

2 (1979) 3 SCC 489; AIR 1979 SC 1628 3 Directorate of Education & Ors. v. EDUCOMP Datamatics Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 19

9 tender document unless the action of tendering authority

is found to be arbitrary and malicious the Court would not

interfere4. It is also well settled in law that a Court cannot

sit over judgment on what should be the eligibility criteria

in the tender notice unless the same is arbitrary,

discriminatory or actuated by mala fides.5

16. The principle of non-discrimination is embodied in Article

14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 has to be read in

conjunction with Rights conferred by other Articles like

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the

Constitution of India refers to Right to Life which includes

‘opportunity’ as well. The doctrine of level playing field is an

important concept while construing Article 19 (1) (g) of the

Constitution of India. Article 19(1) (g) confers Fundamental

Right to carry out business to a company, it is entitled to

invoke the doctrine of level playing field which is however,

subject to public interest. The doctrine of level playing field

4 Global Energy Ltd. & Anr. v. Adani Exports Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 435 - Shimni Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors (2010) 6 SCC 303. 5 Icomm Tele Ltd vs. Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Anr. (2019) 4 SCC 401; Uflex Ltd. V. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 165

10 provides the space within which equally placed competitors

are allowed to bid so as to subserve larger public interest. 6

17. In the backdrop of well settled legal principles, we advert

to the fact of the case in hand. The present tender is for

supply of Sports Kits to the students of Primary School,

Upper Primary School and High and Higher Secondary

School run by the State Government in the State of

Chhattisgarh. The eligibility criteria mentioned in the

impugned tender notices must have rational nexus with the

object sought to be achieved i.e., supply of good quality

Sports Kits to students of the school, at the best price. The

eligibility criteria in impugned notices therefore, should be

framed in a manner which encourages wider participation

and secures the best prize for the State, which in turn

safeguards the public exchequer.

18. This Court in BHARAT FORGE supra has enunciated the

doctrine level playing field and has stated that the same

finds expression in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The

doctrine of level playing field requires that all equally

placed competitors must be given an equal opportunity to

6 UOI & Ors. Bharat Forge Ltd. & ANR. (2022) 17 SCC 188.

11 participate in trade and commerce. It is designed to prevent

the State from skewing the market in favour of few by

erecting artificial barriers. In the instant case, the

impugned tender condition has the effect of excluding

bidders who though otherwise financially sound and

technically competent, have no experience of supply of

sports goods to the State Government agencies of

Chhattisgarh in past three years. The State by linking the

eligibility criteria with past local supplies has created an

artificial barrier, against the suppliers who had no past

dealing with the State of Chhattisgarh. The impugned

condition curtails the fundamental rights of the bidders,

who have been ineligible to participate in the tenders.

19. The object of public procurement is to secure quality

goods and services for the benefit of public exchequer. The

said object can be achieved by requiring the bidders to

demonstrate financial capacity, technical experience, and

past performance in contracts of similar nature, regardless

of place of performance of the contract. To confine the

eligibility to participate in the tender, within one State is

12 not only irrational but is also disproportionate to the goal

of ensuring effective delivery of Sports Kits.

20. Such a restriction, therefore, cannot be justified as

reasonable within the meaning of 19(6) of the

Constitution of India. The State while it enjoys the freedom

to prescribe the conditions in the tender, cannot exercise

that power in a manner that infringes upon constitutional

guarantees, by closing the market to outsiders without just

cause. The doctrine of level playing field requires that gates

of competition be opened to all who are equally placed. The

impugned tender condition excludes the competent and

experienced suppliers, who may have executed contracts of

far greater magnitude in other States or for the Central

Government departments, from participating in the tender

and has the impact of promoting cartelisation. The

impugned condition operates as a closed door to outsiders

and restricts the wider participation of bidders and restricts

competition. The impugned tender condition, therefore, is

violative of Article 14 and also offends Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution of India.

13

21. The justification advanced by the State that Chhattisgarh

being a Maoist affected area and only those with past

experience of supply in the State to State Government

agencies of Chhattisgarh can be relied upon, is untenable

for several reasons. Firstly, the tender in question is not for

security sensitive equipment but is for supply of Sports Kits

which does not involve, any special risk or security

repercussions. Secondly, only some districts of

Chhattisgarh are affected by Maoist activities, and it is

incorrect to treat the entire State, as uniformly affected by

Naxalites, for exclusion of other eligible bidders. Thirdly,

a successful bidder, who may not be conversant with the

topography can engage a local supply chain to supply the

Sports Kits.

22. In the light of aforesaid discussion this Court finds that

impugned tender condition is arbitrary, unreasonable and

is discriminatory. The same does not have any rational

nexus to the object of ensuring effective supply of Sports

Kits to the children in State. It offends the mandate of

Article 14 and freedom of trade guaranteed by Article

19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

14 (V) CONCLUSION

23. In the result, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2025 and

12.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025,

Writ Petition (C) No. 4263 of 2025 and Writ Petition (C) No.

4274 of 2025 respectively by the High Court as well as

impugned tender notices dated 21.07.2025 issued by

Department of School Education, Government of

Chhattisgarh for supply of Sports Kits to students of

Government Primary, Upper Primary, High and Higher

Secondary Schools are quashed and set aside. Needless to

state that respondents are at liberty to issue fresh notices

inviting tenders. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.

……………….……………J. [SANJAY KUMAR]

..….……………………….J. [ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 6, 2025.

15