WP(C)/15464/2026 of VAJRA BIOMETRIX PVT. LTD, HYDERABAD Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 24 June 2026

ORDER

24.06.2026

01.

1. The petitioner, after being disqualified at the technical bid stage, as the equipment so offered does not meet the specification in terms of the tender conditions, approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition challenging the said order of disqualification, primarily on the point that the authorities have selectively incorporated the specification which would only facilitate a single manufacturer and, therefore, the same offends Rule-166 of the General Financial Rules, 2017.

2. According to the petitioner, the equipment so offered by him manufactured by different companies, was found technically qualified in another tender floated at Nashik but the Tender Committee have rejected the bid as the equipment so offered does not meet the specification and, therefore, it is a clear case of discrimination augmenting favoritism and nepotism.

3. At the very outset, we must record that once the tender is floated with the technical specifications, there is hardly any room for interference by the Court as the specification so indicated in the tender is dependent upon the need and the requirements to meet the same. It is open to the tender floating authority to incorporate any technical specification and the manufacturer/dealer who deals with the equipments with such specification may participate therein.

4. It is no gainsaying that the authority floating a tender is the best judge to incorporate any technical specification which would suit the need and the requirement and the person who does not meet such technical specification, if rejected at the technical bid stage, should not be permitted to challenge the same. The technical specification is ascertained and/or determined by an expert and, therefore, the Court should be circumspect and cautious in interfering with the decision taken at the technical bid stage in absence of any convincing material flowing from the experts in the said field. The authorities have vividly and elaborately indicated that the equipment so offered by the petitioner does not conform to the technical specification and the petitioner has not made out any case that the equipment so offered by him actually meets those technical specifications.

5. The plea appears to have been taken, if the specification is relatable to a single manufacturer, there was no occasion to invite an open tender in terms of Rule-166 of the said Rules. Rule-166 of the said Rules pertains to procurement from a single source subject to the conditions that the user department had the knowledge that only a particular firm is manufacturing the said goods and there is an emergent situation which has arisen for immediate procurement of the said goods. It further provides that if particular goods are to be used for standardization of the machinery or the spare parts compatible with the existing equipment, the authority must float the tender by making a single tender inquiry.

6. We do not find all such conditions embodied in the said Rules to exist in the instant case. Even, there is no pleading in the instant writ petition that only one manufacturer meets such technical specification rather, it is a specific stand of the petitioner that certain specifications which were initially incorporated in the tender may convey such intention but on the objections being raised, the authorities have rectified the same and incorporated the general expressions ruling out such probability.

7. Though it is sought to be contended that there are several manufacturers across the world, which would meet the requirement for which the tender is floated but we do not find such stand to be taken substantively for simple reason that once the technical specification is given, the participating bidder must meet such requirement and cannot dictate the terms nor should be permitted to infuse any other terms concerning the specification to be an integral part of the said tender document.

8. Apart from the same, the petitioner participated in the tender with the conscious mind, obviously taking into consideration the technical specification embodied in the tender document and the moment the disqualification at the technical bid stage is made, the petitioner prevaricated its stand and filed the instant writ petition challenging several conditions relatable to the technical specification to be onerous and facilitated a single manufacturer to supply such equipments.

9. It is a cardinal principle of law that a person cannot retract nor take a rebound from his stand after participation and contend that the terms and conditions are improper and engineered to favour a particular manufacturer. It is not open to such bidder to contend the same after participation.

10. We, thus, do not find any justification in entertaining the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

S. Behera Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Jun-2026 13:27:56 Signature Not Verified