with respect to eligibility criteria, past performance criteria, minimum average turnover, payment schedule, modality of issuing inspection certificate, etc. In fact that alleged representation goes as far as dictating specific equipments that should be made part of the tender document. Such requests are against the settled position of law that the tender terms and conditions are purely within the domain of the tendering authority, which is best equipped to understand their own requirements. The terms and conditions of the tender are equally applicable to all the bidders and not just to the petitioner or similarly aggrieved bidders. A bidder cannot be allowed to challenge terms and conditions merely because the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him, has been incorporated. In Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. , SLP(C) 1616/2022, the Supreme Court has held that the tender issuing authority should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless and until it is found to be arbitrary, malafide and/or tailor made. In Montecarlo Limited vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 272 , it was observed and held that the tender inviting authority is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and tender documents, so long as there are no malafides /arbitrariness and that the government should have freedom of contract.
