the eligibility (the minimum turnover prescribed is equivalent to 200% of the estimated cost). Likewise, with respect to similar works, a percentage of the works, advertised has been prescribed both in terms of 3 years, 2 years or the past year. Per se this cannot be considered as arbitrary or discriminatory since it is settled law that the drafting of tender conditions cannot be ordinarily judicially reviewable unless it is patently unreasonable or arbitrary. The reason given by DUSIB for increasing the threshold, in the present case, is the radical change it has proposed vis-a-vis the cleaning of toilets being a public facility. Apart from the fact that the number of facilities and seats have been increased, the DUSIB has also directed use of mechanized technology for cleaning purposes. Furthermore, it has for the first time prescribed a standard with respect to the number of personnel who have to be employed by the contractor. Given all these comparables, the prescription of a high financial threshold or an equally commensurate similar work (in terms of average turnover) in the opinion of the Court is not in any manner unfair. As far as the objection with respect to non-compliance with CVC guidelines goes, the Court is of the opinion that the manual itself indicates that the CVC meant an illustrative guideline and not conclusive or determinative in all aspects. In the present case, the procurement is for services which are not of a commercial character but rather, for the welfare of the people of Delhi. Given these facts, the drafting of eligibility conditions which may tend to minimise the petitioner’s chances to bid successfully, cannot automatically result in arbitrariness.
