ORDER : B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J. The writ petition is filed challenging the pre-condition of turnover requirement in Tender Notification No.1451/UF/HMDA/ 2018 dated 19.08.2025 mandating a minimum turnover of Rs.15 crores in any one financial year during the last three financial years as one of the eligibility criterion for “Installation, Operation and Maintenance of the Gymnasium and Swimming Pool at Dr. G.S. Melkote Park, Hyderabad”, for a period of five years, as being arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner has also sought for a consequential direction to set aside the tender notification and to call for fresh tenders. 2. The background facts of the case are set out hereunder: (a) The petitioner is the sole proprietor of Praxis Fitness Hub. Pursuant to similar tender notification issued by the respondent No.4 in December 2016, the petitioner submitted his bid and he was declared the successful bidder. A Licence Agreement dated 23.03.2017 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.4. The petitioner was granted licence rights to discharge the subject work for “Installation, Operation and Maintenance of Gymnasium and Swimming Pool at Dr. G.S. Melkote Park, Hyderabad for five years”. The petitioner was permitted to continue to perform the work until a fresh tender was issued and licence rights are prospectively granted to any subsequent bidder. (b) In May 2025, the respondent No.3 issued another Tender Notification inviting bids for grant of licence rights and execution of a licence agreement for carrying out the same work vide Notification No.1451/UF/HMDA/2018 dated 30.04.2025. The petitioner, being fully eligible, submitted his bid. But without assigning any reason, whatsoever, the respondent No.3 abruptly cancelled the said tender process vide email dated 14.07.2025. The respondent No.3 again issued a fresh tender notification dated 19.08.2025 whereunder the impugned condition in the form of turnover requirement with condition “must have minimum annual turnover of Rs.15 crores in any one financial year during the last three years” was stipulated. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned financial pre-requisite condition was never prescribed by respondent No.3 in any of the previous tender processes. The Petitioner addressed a representation/letter dated 23.08.2025 to respondent No.3 seeking clarification with respect to the sudden introduction of the impugned financial pre-requisite eligibility condition. However, there was no response from the respondent No.3. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned financial pre-requisite condition was never prescribed by respondent No.3 in any of the previous tender processes. The Petitioner addressed a representation/letter dated 23.08.2025 to respondent No.3 seeking clarification with respect to the sudden introduction of the impugned financial pre-requisite eligibility condition. However, there was no response from the respondent No.3. The last date and time for submission of bids has been stipulated as 28.08.2025 at 3:00 p.m. The respondent No. 3 has not issued any clarification and due to the impugned condition, the petitioner stands effectively precluded from participating in the tender process. The impugned condition of turnover requirement is disproportionately high, wholly arbitrary, and impractical. 4. It is submitted that to accommodate the persons of their choice, a Corrigendum was issued by respondent No.3 after the issuance of Tender Notification dated 19.08.2025 under the heading "Technical Capacity," which states: "Bidder shall, over the past five (05) years preceding the Bid due date, have the following minimum categories of experience." By the Corrigendum, the word "private" was inserted in the sub-clause relating to experience certificates, which was not there in the original tender notification dated 19.08.2025. It is further submitted that for the past 7-8 years, no such requirement of private sector certification was ever imposed. The sudden introduction of this condition clearly reflects mala fide intention to tailor the eligibility criteria in favour of a particular private party. 5. Interim order dated 26.08.2025 was passed by this Court granting interim suspension of the impugned tender notification dated 19.08.2025 by recording a prima facie opinion that the impugned condition is arbitrary, unconscionable and not commensurate to the lease amount under the tender document, the upset price being Rs.10,00,000/-. 6. Counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition has been filed by the respondent No.2 on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 4, wherein, inter alia, it is stated as under: (a) The petitioner is the erstwhile licensee of the Gymnasium and Swimming Pool situated at Dr. G.S. Melkote Park, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. The facility was originally allotted to him under the 2017 tender at an annual license fee of Rs.27,10,899/- for a period of five years, later extended till 31.01.2025 considering COVID-19 restrictions and revenue waivers granted by HMDA. The lease period of the petitioner expired. G.S. Melkote Park, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. The facility was originally allotted to him under the 2017 tender at an annual license fee of Rs.27,10,899/- for a period of five years, later extended till 31.01.2025 considering COVID-19 restrictions and revenue waivers granted by HMDA. The lease period of the petitioner expired. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution nor continue to retain possession of public property. His occupation after 31.01.2025 is purely illegal and amounts to unauthorized usage. (b) It is stated that the Tender Notification No.1451/UF/HMDA/2018 dated 19.08.2025 was issued strictly in accordance with law, through a transparent e-tender process. The eligibility criteria were framed after due consideration of operational, financial, and technical aspects for proper upkeep of a public recreation facility and the eligibility criteria was fixed prior to the calling of tenders. (c) It is stated that even after expiry of licence granted in 2017 for five years, after repeated extensions-including one up to 31.01.2025 on account of COVID-19-related concessions, the petitioner continues in unauthorized occupation of the premises without any valid lease. Dr. G.S. Melkote Park is located in a prime residential locality surrounded by high-income residential clusters. The proposed upgradation is intended to bring the Gymnasium and Swimming Pool facilities on par with modern standards, which includes attracting reputed operators from all corners of the country. The Rs.15 crores turnover clause was introduced to ensure the participation of financially and technically sound entity capable of maintaining a Centre of Excellence with high-end fitness and aquatic infrastructure. (d) The contention of the petitioner that the turnover condition of Rs.15 crores prescribed in Clause 8(iv) is arbitrary or tailor-made is denied. The condition was incorporated after due deliberation and forms part of a conscious policy decision of the Authority. The requirement is intended to ensure participation of financially sound, reputed, and technically experienced bidders capable of maintaining a high-value public recreation facility situated in a prime urban locality. The turnover criterion has a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved and cannot be termed arbitrary. (e) It is stated that the tender process falls within the domain of administrative discretion and uniformly applicable to all intending bidders. Tenderers cannot claim relaxation of eligibility conditions merely to suit their convenience. The turnover clause also addresses past operational challenges, including delayed payments, inconsistent compliance, and defaults by earlier operators, including the petitioner. (e) It is stated that the tender process falls within the domain of administrative discretion and uniformly applicable to all intending bidders. Tenderers cannot claim relaxation of eligibility conditions merely to suit their convenience. The turnover clause also addresses past operational challenges, including delayed payments, inconsistent compliance, and defaults by earlier operators, including the petitioner. The condition is, therefore, reasonable, justified, and necessary to secure improved public services and ensure better revenue realization for the Authority. (f) It is stated that the petitioner failed to pay dues promptly and continued to remain in possession of the premises even after expiry of the lease. The cancellation of tender on 14.07.2025 was accepted by the petitioner and acted upon without protest. The petitioner is deemed to have acquiesced to the said decision and estopped from alleging malafides. The said tender was cancelled on account of receipt of only one application. (g) It is stated that the petitioner suppressed several material facts, including (i) expiry of the licence on 31.01.2025 (ii) the concessions and waivers already granted during the pandemic period and (iii) his continued unauthorized occupation of the premises even after expiry of the lease. 7. Heard Mr. Donthireddy Venkat Reddy, leaned senior counsel appearing for M/s. RVR Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohammad Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 - HMDA. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned tender condition was imposed with an oblique motive to exclude the petitioner from the tender process. The said condition was not imposed in the earlier tender processes issued in respect of the swimming pool and gymnasium of Dr. G.S. Melkote Park or any other similar centres of HMDA or Government Agencies in Hyderabad. The State dealing with public property and largesse has to provide a level playing field. By any standard, the turnover of Rs.15 crores is irrational and arbitrary. The lease amount paid by the petitioner was Rs.27 lakhs per annum since 2017. Even if there is escalation of lease amount at 10% every year, the annual lease may be around Rs.35 lakhs. Thus, for an expected lease amount anywhere between Rs.27 lakhs to Rs.35 lakhs per annum, insistence of Rs.15 crores turnover is wholly arbitrary and unconscionable. 9. The lease amount paid by the petitioner was Rs.27 lakhs per annum since 2017. Even if there is escalation of lease amount at 10% every year, the annual lease may be around Rs.35 lakhs. Thus, for an expected lease amount anywhere between Rs.27 lakhs to Rs.35 lakhs per annum, insistence of Rs.15 crores turnover is wholly arbitrary and unconscionable. 9. Learned senior counsel further submitted that Narayanaguda area is a predominantly middle-class residential locality. Assuming big agencies are invited to upgrade the facilities, it would not serve public interest, as the park with swimming pool and gymnasium was created for the benefit of local residents and if big agency is given the park on lease, naturally there would be enhancement of membership fees, thereby, the residents of the locality would be put to unnecessary financial burden. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that administrative decision, more particularly, relating to tender process cannot be challenged in a routine manner. It is settled principle of law that it is for the employer to impose a condition for inviting best contractors and services. The swimming pool and the gymnasium at the Melkote Park needs to be upgraded and best facilities can be provided if an agency/contractor has good financial eligibility in running health centres. The past experience with the petitioner regarding non-payment of dues and related issues is also one of the factors for imposing the impugned turnover condition. The object was to invite best agencies who can render best services. It is within the domain of the administrative authorities to impose new conditions owing to changed circumstances and financial aspects. The petitioner cannot insist that the impugned condition should not be imposed merely because such condition was not there in the earlier tender notifications. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in VINI SHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH , 2025 SCC OnLine sc 2119 . The impugned condition in the said case viz. “Past Performance Restriction : Bidders must have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs.6.00 crores (cumulative) to State Government agencies of Chattsigarh in the last three financial years (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 or 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25).” was questioned as being unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution India. The Supreme Court held as under: “ 15 . The Supreme Court held as under: “ 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 [ (1979) 3 SCC 489 ], 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 logical. It is equally well settled legal proposition that in the matter of formulating conditions of tender document unless the action of tendering authority is found to be arbitrary and malicious the Court would not interfere. 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. 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 provides the space within which equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to subserve larger public interest. 17 . In the backdrop of well settled legal principles, we advert to the fact of the case in hand. The doctrine of level playing field provides the space within which equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to subserve larger public interest. 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 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. … 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 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. 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.” 12. Learned senior counsel also relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in WATERGRACE PRODUCTS v. NASHK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION , 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 330 wherein the financial qualification prescribed under Clause 3.4.2 that “The minimum Net Worth (the “Financial Capacity”) of the Bidder shall be Rs.100 Crores as on 31.03.2024.” was challenged in the wit petition and it was held in Paras 15 and 20 as under: “ 15 . The scope of interference with tender conditions in exercise of powers of judicial review is well delineated by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. The discretion to grant largesse including contracts, quotas and license and so on must be structured by rationale, relevant and non-discretionary standard or norms. (See: Narendrakumar Maheshwari v. Union of India) [ 1990 Supp SCC 440 ]. It is well settled legal preposition that it is open to the State to impose conditions in the tender prescribing the eligibility criteria and if the State can justify the tender conditions in the context of a particular contract the Courts will not interfere and whenever there are different alternatives, it is not for the Courts to suggest that a particular alternative is justified. In celebrated case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ], it was held that terms of invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny because invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. However, it has been held that decision taken by a body functioning in an administrative or quasi administrative sphere can be tested on the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness and has to be free from arbitrariness, not effectuated by bias or mala fide. In Director of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd.® and in Global Energy Ltd. v. Adani Exports Ltd. it was held that Courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender, unless the same are Shown to be wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. Similar view was taken in ICOMM Tele Limited (supra). … 20 . The estimated cost of tender work is Rs.176 crores over a period of five years i.e. approximately Rs.35 Crores annually. Therefore, the prescription of minimum net worth of Rs.100 Crores as on 31st March 2024 instead of prescription of net worth stipulation is arbitrary. Similarly, an experienced contractor is likely to execute the work successfully. Therefore, reducing the requirement of having the work experience from three years to one year cannot but be said to be arbitrary, and is violative of mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. The first issue is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the ration laid down in VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD ’s case (1 supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. He contended that the tender in the said case was for supply of sports kits to the students of Primary School, Upper Primary School and Higher Secondary Primary School run by the State Government in the State of Chattisgarh (para 17). By referring to the Paras 19 and 20 of the said judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the present case stands on a different factual foundation. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in BALAJI VENTURES PVT. LTD. v. MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. By referring to the Paras 19 and 20 of the said judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the present case stands on a different factual foundation. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in BALAJI VENTURES PVT. LTD. v. MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1967 Clause 1.12(V) of the tender conditions requiring that bidder should have permission and consent of private siding owner to operate the Vimla siding for dispatch of coal to TPS of Mahagenco and the permission/consent of Vimla private siding owner to operate the siding was challenged before the Bombay High Court in a Writ, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner filed appeal before the Supreme Court wherein it was held in paras 9 and 10 as under: “ 9 . Now so far as the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions is concerned, what was challenged before the High Court was one of the tender conditions/clauses. The High Court has specifically observed and noted the justification for providing clause 1.12(V). The said clause was to be applied to all the tenderers/bidders. It cannot be said that such clause was a tailor made to suit a particular bidder. It was applicable to all. Owner should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless it is found to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made. The bidder/tenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him. As per the settled proposition of law as such it is an offer to the prospective bidder/tenderer to compete and submit the tender considering the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender document. 10 . In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 489 , it is observed in para 20 as under: " 20 . 10 . In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 489 , it is observed in para 20 as under: " 20 . The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case." 15. By relying on the aforesaid observations, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the owner/employer has freedom and discretion to impose eligibility criteria and a Court should not ordinarily interfere with such administrative decision, more particularly, when the respondents are dealing with commercial contracts. Discussion and Analysis: 16. The impugned tender condition is extracted below: “ 8. Eligibility Criteria: i. … ii. … iii. … iv. Turnover Requirement : The company must have a minimum annual turnover of Rs.15.0 Crores in any one financial year during the last three financial years. Must be supported by audited Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet certified by a registered Chartered Accountant.” The tender notification was issued on 19.08.2025 and thereafter, the Corrigendum was issued as under with respect to experience certificate: Denial of Level Playing Field – Equal Opportunity: 17. In a tender process, the State is bound to act with absolute fairness and transparency. No doubt, the State/employer has discretion to prescribe a condition to suit and advance its interests. However, when a party approaches a Court alleging arbitrariness and malafides on the part of the State authorities in a tender process, the State is bound to explain that such allegations are unfounded. No doubt, the State/employer has discretion to prescribe a condition to suit and advance its interests. However, when a party approaches a Court alleging arbitrariness and malafides on the part of the State authorities in a tender process, the State is bound to explain that such allegations are unfounded. When a particular condition in a tender is challenged, it is necessary to see the nature of the contract and if such condition would subserve public interest. In matters of State largesse, the State is not only bound to act in a fair and transparent manner but also ensure that there is level playing field and equal opportunity is provided to other prospective tenderers. 18. For instance, a tender, if floated, for construction of a Government building of Rs.10 crores value, prescribing a condition of bidder having annual turnover of Rs.30 crores or Rs.50 crores may appear to be reasonable. But, in the instant case, the tender is floated for granting lease rights. The minimum upset price fixed by the respondents in the tender notification is Rs.10,00,000/-. The lease amount paid by the petitioner since 2017 is about Rs.27 lakhs. The respondents have not chosen to fix the upset price somewhere around Rs.30 lakhs or Rs.35 lakhs (by escalation of lease amount every year). Having chose to fix the upset price at Rs.10 lakhs or even going by the current lease amount of Rs.27 lakhs and odd, being paid by the petitioner, it needs to be seen whether the impugned condition has any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 19. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is that the impugned tender condition is fixed to invite the best agencies all over the country for upgrading the facilities. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the facilities provided and maintained by him are not of standard quality. In the absence of any material before this Court, it has to be presumed that the tender condition prescribed in the earlier notifications have been duly performed by the petitioner. Further, in the instant tender also, the respondents naturally would have taken all reasonable precautions to impose necessary conditions for upkeep and maintenance of swimming pool and gymnasium with certain standards. Having prescribed so, the upset price for lease amount was fixed at Rs.10,00,000/-. 20. The petitioner was a successful bidder pursuant to tender notification floated in the year 2017. Further, in the instant tender also, the respondents naturally would have taken all reasonable precautions to impose necessary conditions for upkeep and maintenance of swimming pool and gymnasium with certain standards. Having prescribed so, the upset price for lease amount was fixed at Rs.10,00,000/-. 20. The petitioner was a successful bidder pursuant to tender notification floated in the year 2017. It is not in dispute that there was no such turnover condition in the earlier tender of 2017 or in the cancelled tender issued in the year 2024. The respondents have every discretion to impose turnover condition but such condition should be commensurate and have nexus with the contract. 21. If the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is to be accepted, then the tender will be open only for a few bidders having high volume of business. It is contended that the swimming pool and gymnasium are located in Narayanaguda, which is predominantly a high-class locality. Such statement is factually incorrect. Dr. Melkote Park is situated in Vittalwadi area (extension of Narayanaguda). It is a known fact that Vittalwadi and Narayanaguda are predominantly middle class and lower middle class localities. If the impugned tender condition is allowed to sustain, then the tender process will be confined only to big players, thereby, eliminating several agencies/contractors including the petitioner, who, in fact, maintained the centre since 2017. It is not as if big players cannot participate in the tender. In fact, they can. If big or financially sound agencies participate along with the petitioner and other similarly placed tenderers, the competitive higher offer of the big agency will be accepted. But there is no plausible reason or justification, whatsoever, to exclude the petitioner and others similarly placed. 22. It is relevant to point out that the eligibility criteria apart from the impugned “turnover requirement” also prescribes “Financial Capacity” which says the bidder shall have minimum net worth of at least Rs.50 lakhs at the close of financial year preceding the Bid due date as per audited Balance Sheets or Income Tax returns. In the opinion of this Court, such financial capacity is sufficient to assess the solvency of the tenderer. 23. In the opinion of this Court, such financial capacity is sufficient to assess the solvency of the tenderer. 23. By imposing the impugned condition, the respondent authorities are confining the tenders only to few agencies, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, denying level playing field and opportunity to other eligible agencies (See paras 16 and 20 of VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD ’s case (1 supra). The ratio laid down in BALAJI VENTURES PVT. LTD .’s case (supra), cited by the learned Additional Advocate General, as discussed in Para 14 above, is not applicable to the facts of the case. The State, being a model employer, should have a pragmatic approach and cannot resort to narrow-minded and unreasonable action. 24. The respondent authorities have not been able to convince this Court from any angle that the condition imposed in the tender notification is reasonable and rational. This Court does not have any hesitation to hold that the impugned tender condition is irrational and does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Apart from that, the respondents have also issued corrigendum by changing the experience of the bidder from “Government/Public Sector Organizations” to “Government/Public/ Private Sector Organizations” which also indicates that the action of the respondents is not fair and reasonable and such conditions are imposed as a tailor-made to suit a few agencies and to eliminate the petitioner from the tender process. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.