Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 10 (GUJ)

Rameshbhai Gangaram Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2026-01-06

BHARGAV D.KARIA, L.S.PIRZADA

body2026
ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P Majmudar with learned advocate Mr. Arpit Kataria appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda for the respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- “A YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned tender bearing tender ID 255014-2025, dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure 3, herein above) to the extent of Condition No. 26 of Clause No. 4.17 "General Terms of the said tender and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 02 herein to frame and finalize the tender conditions of the said Impugned tender bearing tender ID 255014-2025, dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure), herein above) in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 01.03.1988 (Annexure A herein above), in the interest of justice. B. During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay the process and operation of the impugned tender bearing tender ID 255014-2025, dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure J, herein above), till the Condition No. 26 of Clause No. 4.17 "General Terms" of the said tender is quashed / modified / altered in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 01.03.1988 (Annexure A herein above), in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has very fairly contended that the petitioners are challenging the condition No. 4.17 (26) of the General Terms and Conditions of the tender for empanelment for job work of offset printing of textbooks, which provides that “outside of Gujarat State presses are also eligible for this tender”. The petitioners are in the business of printing text books journals and are receiving printing orders from all throughout India including different State Governments and have been satisfactorily complying with the orders. 4. The petitioners are in the business of printing text books journals and are receiving printing orders from all throughout India including different State Governments and have been satisfactorily complying with the orders. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 -Gujarat State Board of School Textbook who has issued the tender dated 18.12.2025 for job work of offset printing of textbooks could not have prescribed condition No. 26, of General Terms, inviting tenders from “Pan India Printers” outside Gujarat, in view of the fact that the printing press is required to be situated in Gujarat so as to see that local printers having their printing press within the Gujarat State may get the benefit of the job work of printing text books. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted that considering the other tender conditions more particularly conditions No. 4.10.2 A (iii) and (iv) pertaining to the printing process prescribing the issue of two quality of papers to be used for printing purpose, the respondent No. 2 is required to carry out the inspection and if the printers from outside Gujarat are permitted to participate in the bidding process the same would result into delay and hardships to respondent No.2 for fulfilling such conditions. 6. It was further submitted that Government of Gujarat in Resolution dated 1.3.1998 has directed that every Board Corporation of the government to have its printing work done by the press within the State itself and to strictly follow such resolutions. It was pointed out that the resolution is still in operation and is not replaced by any other resolution of the Government and therefore, respondent No. 2 could not have prescribed such conditions which is arbitrary on the face of it, as bidders from outside Gujarat could not have been permitted to participate in the bid process. 7. It was further submitted that various other states like Mahashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Rajasthan, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh have restricted the participation of the bidders for similar type of job work of printing of text books to the printers situated in the respective State and as such the petitioners also would not be able to participate in the tender process of similar job work offered by other Boards situated in different states. 8. 8. It was further submitted that in the earlier tenders the respondent No.2 had included the condition that printing press situated outside the Gujarat States are also eligible for participating in the tender which is in clear violation of the Government Resolution dated 1.3.1988 and when the petitioners and other stake holders have raised objection regarding such tender condition, it was not changed and the same conditions have been continued to the detriment of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. 9. It was also pointed out that the petitioners are the members of the Web Offset Printers Association which is an unregistered association, formed with an objective to provide a strong voice for the needs of printing community and the representation made by the petitioners and the Association has not been considered by the respondent No.2 and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by this petition after failing in their attempt to persuade the respondent No. 2 to have the similar condition of restricting the job work being offered to the printers situated locally in the State of Gujarat, as such conditions are adopted by the different State Text Boards. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar also referred to the Gujarat State Procurement Policy 2024 which provides Procedure for Purchase, Reference and Price Matching by prescribing different classes or priority for procurement namely L1 prices of the Class-I Gujarat MSE for local supplier or L1 prices of the Class-II Gujarat MSE or Class II Local Suppliers in condition No. 6 A by giving preference to the local supplier. It was also submitted that the respondent is bound by such Procurement Policy and, therefore, the Clause 26 of condition No. 4.17 is required to be struck down. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar also referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court dated 29.10.2024 in the case of M/s General Offset Printing Press Pvt Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors to submit that the Hon’ble Patna High Court has upheld the conditions prescribing the restrictions to the bids of local enterprises only and such restriction was challenged on the ground that the petitioner before the High Court was located outside the State having sufficient experience in printing and supply of textbooks. The State of Bihar and Ors to submit that the Hon’ble Patna High Court has upheld the conditions prescribing the restrictions to the bids of local enterprises only and such restriction was challenged on the ground that the petitioner before the High Court was located outside the State having sufficient experience in printing and supply of textbooks. It was therefore, submitted that the condition No. 26 in Clause No. 4.17 of the terms and conditions of the bid tender document is arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar also referred to and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr reported in [2025) AIR SC 4759 to submit that the petitioner can challenge the condition of a tender, if such condition does not have an rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. It was submitted that the Clause No. 26 of condition No. 4.17 of the tender condition is against the level playing field of the petitioners by inviting the tenders from outside the State. 13. Having heard learned advocates for the petitioners and considering the challenge to Clause 26 of condition No. 4.17 of the tender conditions of the tender published by respondent No.2, it seems that the tender only permits wide participation and secures best prize for respondent No. 2 for awarding job work for printing of text books by permitting the printers situated outside the Gujarat being eligible for tender. Reliance placed by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would apply conversely to the facts of the said case, as in the facts of the said case, the Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Scheme for providing supplementary nutrition, immunization and pre-school education to the children was implemented by Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh State Project Office, Department of School Education, Chhattisgarh by publishing three tender notices on 21.7.2025 for supply of Sports Kits to the students of Primary School, Upper Primary School and Higher Secondary Schools run by the State Government in the State of Chhattisgarh. However, Condition No. 4 of the tender provided for past performance restrictions by prescribing that bidders must have supplied Sports Kit worth Rs. However, Condition No. 4 of the tender provided for past performance restrictions by prescribing that bidders must have supplied Sports Kit worth Rs. 6 crores (cumulative) to State Government agencies of Chhatisgarh in last 3 financial years. The said condition was under challenge before Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court however, held that the State was entitled to prescribe the conditions in the impugned tender notices, to ensure that the selection of the most capable and reliable bidder takes place to execute the public project of significant scale, sensitivity and public importance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court however considering the decision of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India & ors., reported in [1979 ]3 SCC 489 and the decision in the case of Directorate of Education & Ors. Vs. EDUCOMP Datamatics Ltd. & Ors reported in (2004) 4 SCC 19 and Global Energy Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 435 , Shimni Utsch India Pvt. Ltd & Anr Vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 303 and Icomm Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Anr reported in (2019) 4 SCC 401, Uflex Ltd. V. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165 held as under in Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) :- “16. The principle of non-discrimination is embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 mes 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 provides the space within which equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to sub-serve larger public interest. [6] UOI & Ors. Bharat Forge Ltd. & ANR. (2022) 17 SCC 188 17. The doctrine of level playing field provides the space within which equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to sub-serve larger public interest. [6] UOI & Ors. Bharat Forge Ltd. & ANR. (2022) 17 SCC 188 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 Le, 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)(0) of the Constitution The doctrine of level playing field requires that all equally placed competitors must be given an equal opportunity to 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. 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 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. 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. 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. As per the above dictum of law when the restriction placed in the case before the Honble Apex Court was held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, we are of the opinion that when the respondent No.2 has prescribed the condition permitting outside of Gujarat State presses to participate to encourage wider participation and to secure best price for the State, and such condition cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory as it has a direct rational nexus to the object of ensuring effective job printing of text books for the children in the State of Gujarat in consonance with the mandate of Article 14 and Freedom of Trade granted by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 15. As far as contention raised on behalf of learned advocate for the petitioners regarding the Government Resolution dated 1.3.1988 and the Procurement Policy 2024 are concerned, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the respondent No.2 for prescribing a condition which the respondent No.2 has thought, just and proper by taking a conscious decision to have wider participation of bidders from across the country for job work which is in the interest of the bidding process to obtain best price for printing of textbooks. Respondent No.2 being the procuring agency is entitled to have such freedom of framing the tender condition which cannot be subjected to any scrutiny, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of the forgoing reasons, the petition fails and is summarily rejected with no order as to costs.