The Supreme Court struck down a tender condition requiring prior supply experience within Chhattisgarh as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The condition was held arbitrary for creating an artificial barrier, restricting competition, and offending the doctrine of a level playing field without a rational nexus to the tender’s object.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying Sports Kits to various other states, challenged specific eligibility conditions in three tender notices issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools. The company was aggrieved by condition no. 4, which required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores to State Government agencies within Chhattisgarh in the last three financial years. This condition rendered the appellant ineligible to participate. After its representation was ignored, the appellant filed writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court upheld the impugned condition, citing the state’s discretion to ensure capable bidders and noting similar conditions in other states. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the condition was arbitrary, exclusionary, and violated its fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by discouraging wider participation and fostering cartelisation. The State defended the condition, citing Chhattisgarh’s unique topography and Naxal-affected areas as justification for requiring local experience to ensure timely delivery.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began with the appellant filing a representation against the impugned tender conditions, which went unresponded. Subsequently, the appellant filed three writ petitions before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the validity of the conditions. During the pendency of these petitions, some conditions were deleted via a corrigendum. However, the High Court, through orders dated August 11 and 12, 2025, dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the key eligibility condition. The High Court relied on precedent and found the condition to be neither discriminatory nor unreasonable. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions, which were converted into civil appeals and ultimately allowed, leading to the quashing of the High Court’s orders and the impugned tender condition.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Upholds Level Playing Field, Strikes Down Arbitrary Tender Clause
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that while the State has discretion in framing tender conditions, this power is not absolute and must be exercised without arbitrariness. The Court held that the impugned condition, which mandated prior supply experience exclusively within Chhattisgarh, created an artificial barrier and was not proportionate to the goal of supplying sports kits. It found no rational nexus between this restrictive condition and the tender’s object, as the supply of sports kits is not a security-sensitive activity that justifies such a geographical limitation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the condition unfairly excluded otherwise competent bidders, restricted competition, and violated the fundamental rights to equality and freedom of trade under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the impugned orders of the High Court dated August 11 and 12, 2025, and set aside the tender notices dated July 21, 2025, issued by the Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh. The Court declared the specific tender condition requiring past supply experience within the state as arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh tender notices in accordance with the law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1182 Civil Appeal No.: (@ SLP (C) No. 24075 of 2025) and connected appeals. Date of Judgement: October 6, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Download The Judgement Here