Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 21 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Micky Traders (referred to as H1 Bidder); Respondent – L.R.Y. Labour Contractor & Ors. (H2 Bidder). The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (the Board) and the Market Committee, Ludhiana (the Committee) are also parties to the proceedings.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil Appeals (CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026) arising out of Special Leave Petitions (SLP (C) No. 22161 of 2026 and SLP (C) No. 23127 of 2026) challenging a High Court order dated 27 May 2026.
  • Background: On 13 Feb 2026 the Committee issued a Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (DNIT) for the collection/realisation of user charges for utilisation of Mandi infrastructure by retail and other vehicles for a twelve‑month period (01 Apr 2026 – 31 Mar 2027). The reserve price was Rs 12,21,58,500 per annum.
  • Bids Received: Three bidders submitted bids. The technical bid of Micky Traders (H1) was found responsive and its financial bid of Rs 16,51,51,000 was the highest, surpassing the H2 Bidder’s Rs 15,03,33,000.
  • Letter of Acceptance (LoA): Despite an objection from H2 that H1 lacked the requisite experience under Clause 9(c)(a) of the Board’s enlistment instructions, the Committee issued an LoA to H1 on 20 Mar 2026.
  • High Court Intervention: H2 filed a writ petition on 19 Mar 2026. The High Court, on 27 May 2026, held that H1’s technical bid did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, quashed the LoA and directed the Board and Committee to issue a LoA to the eligible tenderer.
  • Contentions:
  • H1, through counsel Siddhartha Iyer, argued that the High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction and that the experience clause should be read purposively, not literally.
  • The Board, represented by Jagjit Singh Chhabra, contended that the instructions were directory and that the High Court should not interfere with commercial wisdom.
  • H2, via counsel Amit Rawal, maintained that H1’s experience certificates did not demonstrate two years of user‑charge collection for Government/PSU entities and that the certificates pertained to unrelated cattle‑fair contracts.
  • Key Legal Provisions: Clause 9(c)(a) of the Board’s Enlistment Instructions (effective 01 Feb 2026) requires submission of completion certificates evidencing successful execution of annual user‑charge/parking‑fee work in Government, Semi‑Government or PSU organisations during the last two years up to 31 Dec 2025.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, emphasizing that courts intervene only on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. It held that the experience clause is a mandatory eligibility condition, not merely directory, and must be interpreted strictly to ensure the bidder possesses specialised experience in collecting public user charges, not incidental collection arising from cattle‑fair activities.
  • Evidence on Experience: The certificates presented by H1 listed participation of three separate firms (Shadab Rainder & Co., Rajpura; Rajpura, Mukatsar Cattle Fair, Rajpura; Capital Cattle Fair, Rajpura) between 11 Jul 2018 and 15 Dec 2024. No partnership deed or registration proof linked these firms to Micky Traders or its proprietor Ravinder Singh, rendering the certificates insufficient.
  • Consistency of H1’s Conduct: The Court noted that H1 had previously been rejected by the Marketing Committees of Patiala and Rajpura on the same experience clause and had not challenged those rejections, undermining its present claim of a different interpretation.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the High Court’s order quashing the LoA to Micky Traders, and affirmed that the Board and Committee must award the contract to the eligible tenderer.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • Any pending interlocutory applications were to stand disposed of accordingly.

Topics: Tender Eligibility, Judicial Review