JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-firm seeking following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to call for the record, examine the same, and accept and allow this writ petition, and may kindly- (i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set aside the impugned Pre-Qualifying Requirement Clause (Para-7) in Tender Notice No. TN/STPS-SC/2025- 26/239(CHP) dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure-2) to the extent it mandates experience only in single contract of similar work and the biennial contract shall be treated equivalent to two annual contract of 50% contract value. (ii) Further direct the respondents to suitably amend the tender condition to permit participation of bidders having aggregate experience of similar works in more than one contract; (iii) Direct the respondents that the bid of the petitioner shall not be rejected solely on the ground that it lacks a single-contract performance certificate of one year having aggregate value; (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. As per brief facts of the case, the petitioner is a 'proprietorship firm' engaged in providing skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manpower for various categories of work and its primary function is placement and supply of manpower for diverse projects undertaken by government and semi government organisations. The petitioner-firm has an experience of executing multiple contracts of similar nature for various thermal power stations and Public Sector Undertakings. The respondents floated a Tender Notice dated 19.07.2025 for hiring placement agency for providing skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manpower for the work of complete operation, maintenance and housekeeping of automated Programmable Logic Controllers based coal handling plant at SSCTPS, Suratgarh, including Wagon Unloading, Operation and Maintenance of heavy machineries, locomotives and other equipments such as electrical and C&I works of CHP area and other related works as specified in the scope of work. The estimated cost of the said project was about Rs.27.52 crores. According to the petitioner-firm, the respondents have made a requirement in the Impugned Tender Notice dated 19.07.2025 i.e. Pre-Qualifying Requirement (hereinafter referred to as ‘PQR’) which is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in nature. The estimated cost of the said project was about Rs.27.52 crores. According to the petitioner-firm, the respondents have made a requirement in the Impugned Tender Notice dated 19.07.2025 i.e. Pre-Qualifying Requirement (hereinafter referred to as ‘PQR’) which is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in nature. The petitioner-firm has challenged the condition contained in Para 1 and the definition of similar work as provided in Para 2 of the impugned Tender document and Clause 4 under the Note Clause, which restricts eligibility only to those bidders, who have executed similar work in a single contract of prescribed value in one year during the last 7 years. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-firm argues that the PQR Clause, as mentioned in the aforesaid impugned Tender Notice, requires the bidders who have executed similar work only in single contract for one year of the specified value, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principle of level playing field and such condition is also arbitrary to the object and spirit of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2012’) and the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2013’), which mandates transparency, fairness, equitable treatment of bidders, promotion of competition, enhancement of efficiency and economy and safeguarding of integrity in the procurement process. It has been further argued that the eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned Tender Notice does not bear any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the PQR, restricting eligibility only to the bidder who has executed similar works in a single contract of the value equal to 40%, 50% or 80% to the cost, is ex-facie arbitrary. It is further submitted that the respondents have adopted fundamentally different standards at different power plants without any rational basis or intelligible differentia. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that such PQR has been incorporated in the impugned Tender Notice only with a motive to provide an undue advantage to the preferred-firms of the respondents, which have been securing contracts for similar works, resulting an increase in the cost of tenders, year after year and thus, causing financial burden on the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that such PQR has been incorporated in the impugned Tender Notice only with a motive to provide an undue advantage to the preferred-firms of the respondents, which have been securing contracts for similar works, resulting an increase in the cost of tenders, year after year and thus, causing financial burden on the State. Learned counsel also argues that this is a fit case where the Court should exercise its power of judicial review in the tender matter because the conditions of the impugned Tender Notice are arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed and PQR contained in the impugned Tender Notice dated 19.07.2025 be quashed and set aside, as the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also of the provisions of the Act of 2012. Learned counsel also prays that the respondents be directed to prescribe fair and transparent eligibility criteria consistent with the Act of 2012 and constitutional principles, ensuring a level playing field and genuine competition, and futhermore, the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner’s bid on merits, without any arbitrary or hyper-technical exclusion. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (SLP (C) No.24075/2025); decided on 06.10.2025 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Watergrace Products Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online Bom 330. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. This petition has been filed by a 'non-existent entity'. Learned counsel further submits that the present petition is filed in the capacity of a 'proprietorship firm' whereas, the status of the petitioner's firm has been converted into 'partnership' firm and this fact is evident from the letter dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure-R1) issued by MPPGCL to the petitioner. 7. This petition has been filed by a 'non-existent entity'. Learned counsel further submits that the present petition is filed in the capacity of a 'proprietorship firm' whereas, the status of the petitioner's firm has been converted into 'partnership' firm and this fact is evident from the letter dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure-R1) issued by MPPGCL to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel argues that though, the petition is filed challenging the impugned Tender Notice dated 19.07.2025 being arbitrary in nature, the petitioner-firm has failed to substantiate the same in the present petition, as it has failed to submit any proof showing arbitrariness or malice on the part of the respondents. Furthermore, the petitioner-firm while submitting its tender form as well as other documents, has represented its identity as 'proprietorship firm' despite the firm having been floated as a 'partnership firm', therefore, the petitioner-firm has misrepresented its identity, which is fraudulent and vitiates the transparency of the tender process. Learned counsel further argues that it has been held by various Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments that the Tendering Authority is the best judge of framing eligibility criteria and the scope of judicial review in tender matters is very limited in nature and is confined only to the cases of patent arbitrariness, malice or perversity. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present petition, neither, the petitioner-firm has pleaded any specific malafide action, nor has shown any specific discrimination on the part of the respondents, hence, interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. Learned counsel also submits that provisions of Act of 2012 empowers the procuring entities to prescribe eligibility benchmarks to ensure competence, financial capacity and reliability. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that as per the provisions laid down under Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2013, number of firms qualified in the Tender Notice process in technical evaluation should not be less than three, whereas, in this matter, total 6 bidders including the present petitioner-firm have participated. Learned counsel further argues that in the present case, the condition enumerated in Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2013, has been duly complied with, as out of the total 6 bids, 4 bids have been found to be technically qualified. Learned counsel further argues that in the present case, the condition enumerated in Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2013, has been duly complied with, as out of the total 6 bids, 4 bids have been found to be technically qualified. Learned counsel also argues that in this matter, the impugned tender process has been conducted strictly in accordance with statutory mandate, Central Vigilance Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'CVC') guidelines and e-procurement norms. Learned counsel submits that each power station is an independent cost center with distinct technical layouts, machinery and Operation and Maintenance (hereinafter referred to as 'O&M') requirements, hence, different eligibility norms do not amount to discrimination. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that identical PQR was also made an eligibility criteria for the past 4 tenders, which prima facie discards the allegation of arbitrariness by the respondents in favour of any specific bidder. Learned counsel also contends that the tender cost increased year after year due to revised Basic Schedule of Rates (hereinafter referred to as 'BSR') approved by Competent Authority under the Act of 2012, accounting for statutory wage revisions, inflation and increased O&M scope. Learned counsel also contends that the respondents have given fair opportunity to all the bidders to submit shortfall documents of PQR compliance and the petitioner's request to treat 'two separate work orders in the same plant' as one composite order is impermissible. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents prays that as the petitioner-firm has failed to prove any arbitrariness, malice and discrimination in the impugned tender process on the part of the respondents for the bidders, such allegations of the petitioner are unsustainable; unsupported by any specific instance or evidence and are simply based on conjecture and the petitioner-firm has also failed to prove any bias or favouritism on the part of the respondents, therefore, the present petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. Admittedly, it is well settled principle that in the tender matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited and the Court can interfere in such matters only when there is patent arbitrariness, malice or perversity. In the matters of policy and technical discretion, the Courts have very limited power of reviewing the tender process. 13. Admittedly, it is well settled principle that in the tender matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited and the Court can interfere in such matters only when there is patent arbitrariness, malice or perversity. In the matters of policy and technical discretion, the Courts have very limited power of reviewing the tender process. In the case in hand, the respondents have demonstrated that the PQR as mentioned in the impugned Tender Notice dated 19.07.2025, was also there in the last 3 Tender Notices floated by the respondents earlier. In the last 4 tenders including the present one, total 11 bids were submitted out of which 7 bids have been found to be technically qualified. Thus, prima facie, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that PQR has been evolved only with the motive to provide an undue advantage to the favoured bidders, is unsustainable. In the present matter, 6 bids were submitted in the impugned tender process, out of which 4 bids were found to be technically qualified, therefore, the provisions laid down under Rule 63(4) of the Rules of 2013 have been strictly complied with. It is also evident that the impugned tender process was conducted through e-procurement portal while following CVC guidelines and ensuring transparency and fair competition. 14. Now, it is settled law that the terms of inviting the tenders; being under the contractual domain, are not subject to judicial scrutiny unless they are arbitrary, biased or malafide in nature and therefore, the role of the Court is to ensure that the tender process is free from arbitrariness, bias or malice. In the case in hand, the petitioner-firm has failed to present any material fact to prove that the action of the respondents while floating the impugned Tender Notice, is arbitrary, biased or malafide, therefore, in the firm opinion of this Court, the present petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed and hence, the PQR contained in the impugned Tender Notice dated 19.07.2025 is not liable to be quashed and set aside. 15. With the aforesaid discussions, the present petition stands dismissed. Stay application and any other pending applications also stand disposed of.