LexVINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 301 : 2025 INSC 1182 Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 12487 of 2025) 06 October 2025 [Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the impugned tender condition meets the test of reasonableness and fairness and or whether the same constitutes an arbitrary criteria which excludes the other eligible bidders from participation thereby violating, the mandate contained in Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19(1)(g) – Tender – Tender condition – Test of reasonableness and fairness – State of Chhattisgarh issued tender notices for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools – Tender condition as regards past performance restriction that bidders must have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs.6.00 crores to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in last three financial years – Appellant rendered ineligible for participation in the tender process – Writ petition by the appellant challenging the validity of the tender condition – Dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Impugned tender condition arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory – 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 Art.14 and freedom of trade guaranteed by Art.19(1)(g) – 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 – Object of public procurement is to secure quality goods and services for the benefit of public exchequer – Said object can be achieved by requiring the bidders to demonstrate financial capacity, technical experience, and past performance in * Author 302 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 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 – 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 – Doctrine of level playing field requires that gates of competition be opened to all who are equally placed – 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 – 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, untenable – Impugned orders passed by the High Court as well as impugned tender notices quashed and set aside. [Paras 17-23] Constitution of India – Art.19 (1) (g) – Doctrine of level playing field – Concept of: Held: Doctrine of level playing field is an important concept while construing Art.19(1)(g) – Art.19(1)(g) confers fundamental right to carry out business to a company, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of level playing field however, subject to public interest – Doctrine of level playing field provides the space within which equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to subserve larger public interest – 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. [Paras 16, 18] Case Law Cited Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Ors. [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 496 : (2005) 1 SCC 679; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. [1979] 3 SCR 1014 : (1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628; Directorate of Education & Ors. v. EDUCOMP Datamatics Ltd. & Ors. [2004] 2 SCR 1010 : (2004) 4 SCC 19; Global Energy Ltd. & Anr. v. [2025] 10 S.C.R. 303 Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Adani Exports Ltd. &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.