.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Snapshot
Case Name: Micky Traders v. L.R.Y. Labour Contractor & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1025
Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Judgment: September 21, 2026
Area of Law: Tender Law, Public Contracts, Judicial Review, Eligibility Criteria
The Judgment in One Line
Supreme Court dismisses appeals, holding that the highest bidder lacked the mandatory specialised experience of collecting user charges for government bodies, and the High Court rightly quashed the tender award.
Why this Judgement Matters
This judgment reinforces that tender eligibility conditions, especially specialised experience requirements, must be strictly construed. It clarifies that incidental collection of charges in an unrelated commercial venture (like organising a cattle fair) cannot substitute for proven experience in collecting statutory user charges for government bodies. Revenue considerations cannot cure ineligibility. The ruling also applies the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, preventing a bidder from taking inconsistent stands on the same clause. It delineates the narrow scope of judicial review while upholding interference when the tendering authority's interpretation is patently arbitrary.
Background
The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board issued a tender for collecting user charges from vehicles using mandi infrastructure. The H1 bidder (Micky Traders) quoted the highest bid of ₹16.51 crore, while H2 (L.R.Y.) quoted ₹15.03 crore. The H2 bidder objected that H1 lacked the two-year experience in collecting user charges/parking fees for government bodies as required by Clause 9(c)(a). H1's experience was in organising cattle fairs, where it collected incidental charges as a lessee, not as an agent of a public body. The High Court quashed the Letter of Acceptance to H1 and directed issuance to the eligible bidder. Both H1 and the Board appealed.
Issues Before the Court
Whether H1 possessed the specialised experience required by Clause 9(c)(a) of the enlistment instructions.
Whether organising a cattle fair and collecting incidental charges equates to collecting user charges/parking fees for government bodies.
Whether the certificates produced by H1 established its own experience.
Whether the doctrine of approbate and reprobate applies to H1's inconsistent stands.
Whether the enlistment instructions are mandatory or directory.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
Specialised Experience Required
Clause 9(c)(a) required successful execution of annual collection of user charges/parking fees for Government, Semi-Government or PSU organisations during the last two years up to 31.12.2025.
Organising a cattle fair is fundamentally different: the organiser is a lessee paying rent, not an agent collecting statutory charges for a public body.
Incidental collection of parking fees at a fair is for the organiser's own account, not a specialised contractual duty owed to a public authority.
If such incidental collection were accepted, the eligibility clause would be rendered meaningless.
Certificates Did Not Establish H1's Experience
The certificates were in the names of three separate firms, not Micky Traders.
The claim that H1's proprietor was a partner in those firms was unsubstantiated; no partnership deed or registration certificate was produced.
An unverified assertion of nexus cannot satisfy an eligibility criterion.
Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate
H1 had previously participated in tenders at Patiala and Rajpura under an identical clause, where its bids were rejected for lack of experience.
H1 did not challenge those rejections.
Having accepted that construction when it operated against it, H1 could not argue the opposite before a different authority.
A party cannot approbate and reprobate on the same contractual language.
Revenue Considerations Cannot Cure Ineligibility
The argument that H1's higher bid should be preferred in public interest was rejected.
Bids can be compared only among eligible bidders; eligibility conditions cannot yield to the highest figure.
Public interest is served by holding the Committee to its own prescribed conditions.
Enlistment Instructions Mandatory
The Committee itself treated the experience criterion as mandatory.
It merely erred in assessing whether H1's certificate satisfied that requirement.
The instructions were not directory.
High Court Rightly Interfered
The Committee's interpretation was patently arbitrary and dehors the tender terms.
It fell within the narrow exception to limited judicial review.
The High Court correctly exercised power under Article 226.
Key Legal Principles
Tender eligibility conditions must be strictly construed; specialised experience cannot be equated with incidental collection in an unrelated commercial venture.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited, but interference is warranted if the interpretation is dehors the tender terms or patently arbitrary.
A party cannot approbate and reprobate on the meaning of the same contractual language.
Revenue considerations do not override eligibility criteria.
Enlistment instructions prescribing a prerequisite are mandatory.
Unverified assertion of nexus between bidder and third-party firms cannot satisfy eligibility.
The tender author's interpretation is deferred to only if manifestly in consonance with the language and purpose of the document.
Important Precedents
Tata Cellular v. Union of India – Laid down limited scope of judicial review in tender matters; review on grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety.
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa – Test for interference: mala fide, arbitrariness, or public interest.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corp. – Employer is best person to interpret tender document.
Agmatel India (P) Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom – Deference available only if interpretation is manifestly in consonance with language.
Kimberley Club (P) Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad – Interference if decision is dehors the NIT or patently arbitrary.
Practical Impact
For Advocates: This judgment provides a strong precedent to challenge tender awards where ineligible bidders are favoured. It emphasises strict compliance with eligibility clauses.
For Future Litigation: The ruling will be cited in tender disputes involving specialised experience requirements and inconsistent stands by bidders.
For Tender Authorities: Must apply eligibility clauses as written; cannot dilute specialised experience requirements.
For Bidders: Cannot rely on incidental experience or third-party credentials; must produce clear certificates in their own name.
Lawcurb Quick Insight
The Court noted that if incidental collection of parking fees at a cattle fair were accepted as sufficient, the specialised experience clause would be emptied of its purpose. The distinction between a lessee and an agent collecting statutory charges is crucial.
Lawcurb Practice Note
Advocates should: (i) ensure certificates clearly show the bidder's own experience in the required work; (ii) avoid inconsistent stands on identical clauses; (iii) argue that revenue considerations cannot cure ineligibility; and (iv) rely on the narrow exception to judicial review when interpretation is arbitrary.
Remember this Ratio
Specialised experience in collecting user charges for government bodies cannot be substituted by incidental collection in an unrelated commercial venture.
Final Outcome
Civil Appeals dismissed.
High Court order dated May 27, 2026 upheld.
Acceptance of H1 bidder's technical and financial bid quashed.
Direction to issue Letter of Acceptance to eligible tenderer (H2) stands.
No order as to costs.
Pending applications disposed of.
Lawcurb Verdict
This judgment is a significant affirmation of the integrity of the tender process. By insisting on strict adherence to specialised eligibility criteria, the Court ensures that public contracts are awarded to competent entities. The ruling also reinforces the doctrine of approbate and reprobate and clarifies that revenue considerations cannot override eligibility. A well-reasoned judgment that upholds the rule of law in public procurement.
Exam Lens
Question 1: What is the scope of judicial review in tender matters? When can courts interfere?
Answer: Judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining the decision-making process, not the decision itself. Courts interfere on grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, mala fides, or arbitrariness. The tender author's interpretation is generally deferred to if it is manifestly in consonance with the language and purpose. However, interference is warranted if the interpretation is dehors the tender terms or patently arbitrary, as in Micky Traders.
Question 2: Explain the doctrine of approbate and reprobate in the context of tender law.
Answer: The doctrine prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions on the same issue. In Micky Traders, the H1 bidder had previously accepted rejection under an identical experience clause at other tenders but later argued the opposite. The Supreme Court held it could not approbate and reprobate on the same contractual language.
Question 3: Can revenue considerations justify awarding a tender to an ineligible bidder?
Answer: No. Revenue considerations cannot cure ineligibility. Bids can be compared only among eligible bidders. Accepting a higher bid from an ineligible bidder would render eligibility conditions meaningless. Public interest is served by strict adherence to prescribed conditions.
This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.