W4 IN THE HIEH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVI$ION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JusTICE DHIRENDRA &$HRA & HON‘BLE Mk JUSTICE nAN‘ CHAnnnAun :rJ Wrif Pcfifion (c) No.531/2010 (Pew-inn under Amcie 226 af the Cons‘mwon of India) PETITIONE! H.C. Slaw. aged abouf 8O years. 5/0 Law C.L. Shdn. Pmpriefor M/s Sanfok Trader's, R/o 8-243, NMDC Colony, Rqjendra Nagar, Raipur (C6) V$ RESPONDWS 1. Sfafe of Chhmisgarh, Through Principal Séorefaw, Technical & Educa‘lion Manpower Recruitmenf Science and Industrial Department isavi‘. of Chhai‘l‘isgarh, Secrei‘wia‘i, D.K,5. Bhawan. Raipur (C.6.) 2. Direcforafe of Employmenf & Training Gavf. of Chhaffisgarh, Byron Bazar, Raiour (C6) Through:- Dir-ecior Emplayrnerri and Training Chhu‘i‘l‘isgwh Raipur (C6) Present: Mr.V.6. Tamo§wry Advocate for ‘ihe peii'iianer. Mr. Alok Bakshi. Govt Advocoi'e for the respondenfs. o k A L o R b E a (4“ February, 20m) Heard on admission. The petii'ioner by fhe insfanf pefifion has prayed for quashing of fhe No‘i‘ice Invifing Tender (NIT) dared 5.1.2010 (Annexure P-7). . Grievance of the petitioner is that in response to the NIT dated 20.10.2009 of Annexure P—l the petitioner submitted its bids for the works of 5chedule Group- II (Ann'exure P-2), Schedule 6roup-V (Annexure P-3) oi Schedule Group-VI (Annexure P—4), however, the respondents did not open the technical bid of Schedule Group-II and returned the tender envelope submitted by the petitioner for Group-II along with memo of Annexure P-5. Bank guarantee submitted by way of earnest money against the Group V di VI was also returned to the petitioner- along with memo of Annexure P-b. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has again issued the notice inviting tender dated 05.01.2010 (Annexure P-7) for the some Groups by violating-the terms and conditions of the tender of Annexure P—S, as according to Clause 9.A of the terms and conditions of the tender, it is the tenderer alone who can change the specifications. . Mr. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has returned the tender document for Group-II without opening the technical bid. i . . _. 2. Similarly. bank guarmfee furnished as earnesf money againsf Group V & VI has also been rammed fa 'rhe pefifioner wifhouf assigning any reason. whereas fhe respondeni No.2 was duiy bound +0 disclose the reasons before taking the above decision. Thaf apart. NIT of Annexure P-7 has been issued for the same work in violation of Clause 9 (a) of the terms dl conditions of the tender which provides that the tenderer alone can change the specifications. We have heard learned counsel for the parties It Is settled law that the terms md conditions in the tender are prescribed by the authority calling tender. Such authority is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. It is not for the Court to say whether the conditions prescribed in the tender under consideration were better than the once prescribed in the earlier tender initiations. Terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, as the some being in the realm of contract and the authority calling tender should have a free hand in setting terms of the tender. The Court would interfere in the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, molafide or actuated by bias. The authority is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Court cannot strike down 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. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary. discriminatory or malafide. {Please see Monwch Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Versus Commissioner, Ulhasnagar, Municipal Corpn. [(2000) 5 SCC 287]: Directorate of Education aid others Vs. Educamp Datamatics Ltd. and others [(2004) 4 5CC 19]. 7. After hearing the petitioner and on perusal of the averments in the petition, we find that there is no allegation that the aforesaid conditions have been prescribed in the NIT on account of any ill-will towards the petitioner. There is no allegation that the aforesaid conditions have been prescribed to favour a particular person. 8. 'lhus, relying upon the settled principles of law in this regard, we do not find any substance in this petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the r admisSion stage itself 9 Consequently I A N01 application for interim relief also stands dismissed if, as 'Lx Sd/- Fl Dhirendra Mishfa Judge . .