Did the decision in Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, striking down a State-specific past-performance eligibility clause as arbitrary, govern a challenge to a clause requiring bidders to maintain a functional office and warehouse in Delhi?

No. The clause in Vinishma linked eligibility to past supplies made specifically to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh — an artificial barrier curtailing the fundamental rights of bidders otherwise financially sound and technically competent. The Delhi office/warehouse clause under challenge here was, by contrast, operational rather than geographical in nature, incorporated to ensure prompt installation, inspection, servicing and maintenance of equipment supplied to government schools, and did not exclude bidders located outside Delhi who could establish the prescribed operational infrastructure; Vinishma accordingly had no decisive bearing on the matter.

Constitution of India — Article 226 — public procurement — tender eligibility conditions — delay and laches — delay and laches — accrual of challenge — conscious inaction — Held: A challenge to a tender condition or eligibility criterion accrues on the very day the condition is published, and an entity that considers itself excluded must at the earliest raise the grievance before the Court; conscious inaction that allows the process to advance is not excused by later representations. (¶23–25) delay in public procurement — not measured by calendar days alone — Held further: Delay in public procurement is assessed not merely by counting days but by reference to what has occurred during those days, whose interests have arisen, and what public consequences would follow from unsettling an advanced, multi-stage process of significant public interest. (¶19, ¶21) Vinishma Technologies distinguished — operational v. geographical exclusion — Held further: A clause requiring bidders to maintain an office and warehouse in Delhi, incorporated to ensure prompt installation and servicing of equipment for government schools and open to any bidder able to demonstrate the required operational infrastructure, is operational rather than geographical in nature and stands apart from a State-specific past-performance restriction earlier struck down as an artificial, exclusionary barrier. (¶29–¶34) acquired rights of compliant bidders — public interest — appeals dismissed — Held further: Bidders who cleared every stage of evaluation acquire rights and interests that a belated, non-bona fide challenge cannot be permitted to disturb, particularly where the procurement serves schoolchildren; both Appeals were accordingly dismissed, leaving the validity of the disputed clause open for an appropriate case. (¶26–27, ¶35–37)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/S. UTKARSH ENTERPRISES & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India