^l y HXGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 31LASPVR W. P. fq No.377 of 2010 PETITIONER: M/ s Mohaniixiad Qasmi, through Sheikh Niyaxaatullah, S/o Mohd, Qasisn, aged 45 years, R/o Dard Road, House No, 173, Waid No.l, Ramsagar Para, Korba, Tehsil & Zila Korba (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Maiiaging Director, Dao.giiiya, Raipur (CG) CSPGCL, Chief Engineer, CSPGCL, HTPS, West Korba (CG) Chief Engineer, CSPGCL, East Korba (CG) Chief Engineer, CSPQCL, DSPM, EAST Korba (CG) Prescnt: Shri Sheikh Niyaiaiatullah, petitioner ia person. Divisioaa Beach: Hoii. Shri Dfaireiidra Mlshra & Hoxx, Shri RN. Claandrakar, JJ. ORDBR (25-1-2010) The foUowiag order ofthe Court was passed by Dhirea&dya Mishra^ J. 1. By this petition, fhe petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to relax the conditions relatmg to requirement of tara over and mega watt present in the NIT issued by fhe respondent establishments for participatmg iri tender of AOH aad other tender works aad aUow the petitioner aa opportunily to participate ia tMe tender process for which he is eUgible after relaxation, 2. The grievance of fhe petitioner is that Ae petitioner finn is. a registered contractor and is engaged in contract works witb. NTPC, CSEB aiid ofher organizations sirice last 25 years. He has successfaUy accomplished 4 works of AOH aiid ESP ujicler the respondeiits froia fhe year 2000 and one work ofdiict axid dumper in the year 2000. Last tiiae the petitioner was awaixled the work of ESP by respondent No,2 m the year 2005, However, after fhe year 2005, he could not obtaia ftie contract for the aforesaid work froxn 3 subsidiaries of fhe respondents due to change ia el^ibility criteria fliough he had also submitted his tender for fhe work AOH, ESP aad other tenders. In the year 2007, HTPS., West Korba had prescrib^d a conditioii tliat a contractor sbould have received 2 work orders in the precediag 5 years of fhe same type of work. In the year 2010, additional condition has been prescnbed tliat the coxitmctor, desirous of participating m the tender, should have been awarded 2 siBiiIar work orders ia fhe preceding 5 years and fhe value of fhe 2 work orders should not be less than Rs. 10 lakhs. No such condition was ever prescribed ia the past. 3. The petitioner argued that fhe terms and conditions prescribed iii fhe NIT by 3 subsidiaries of fhe respondents for AOH and ofher tender work is arbitrary, illegal aad irrational, Non issuance of the tender form to fhe petitioner, who has experience of execution of work of AOH and otlier tender work oxily on the ground that he did not execute two AOH work wifhia last 5 years is irrelevant aiid wifhout aiiy reason. The eUgibility criteria regarding experience in fhe 3 subsidiaries of respondent No,l is dtfferent which demonsteates highhandedness of the respondents. 4. We have heaixil fhe petitioner. 5. It is setfled law fhat fhe tergas and conditions ia the tender are prescribed by fhe authority calliag tender, Such aufhority is fhe best jiidge to prescribe the tenns aiid conditions of flie teBder. It is not for fhe Court to say whether fhe conditions prescribed in tlie tender under considex^tion were better fhari fhe once prescribed ia ftie earUer teiider initiations. Terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scnitiiiy, as ftie same beiag in fhe readm ofcontract and fhe authority calting tender ishould have a fi^ee haiid insetting terms of the tender. The Coart would iaterfere ia fhe admiaisti^twe policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discrhniuatoiy, malafidie or actiiated by bias. The authority is entitied to pragmatic adjustmente which may be caned for by fhe particiilar circumstaMces, Tlxe Court caiinot strike down tlie tenns of fhe tender prescribed by fhe Govermnent becaase it feels that some ofher tenns in fhe tender •A^U'iWte'UUMiy woiild have been fair^ wiser or logical. The Coiirt can iaterfere only ii' fhe poUcy decision is arbitrary, discnmiaatory or malafide. ^please see Monarch Infrastoructure (P) Ltd,, Versus Commissioner, Ulhasne^ar, Municipal Corpn. l(2000) 5 SCC 287]; Directomte of Education aad ofhers Vs. Ediicomp Dataaiatics Ltd, and ofkiers 1(2004) 4 SCC 19]. 6. After hearing the petitioner aod on perusal of fhe averment in fhe petition, we find fhat there m no allegation that the aforesaid conditions have been prescribed in fhe NIT on account of aiiy itl-will towards the petitioner, There is no atlegation fhat fhe aforcsaid conditions have been prescnbed to favour a particular persoxi. 7. Thus^ relyiiig^ upon tlie setfled principles of law ta fhis regard, we do not fmd aay substaace m tiiis petition, fhe same desexves to be aud is hereby disxnissed at fhe adxnission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Barye Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge