Bidding Document (SBD) required the manufacturer of quoted items/goods to have a valid manufacturing licence and the experience of manufacturing and supply, for at least three financial years. However, the period of experience for supply of materials was relaxed to five years, so that more bidders could participate in the bidding process. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are required to have the experience of manufacturing and supplying of the materials for at least three financial years. He submits that although the requirement of having experience of supply of items to government department etc. is not specifically mentioned in respect of manufacturers, yet the spirit of the entire Clause 4.2.1 of ITB would have a bearing on this case, as it indicates the need for experience of supplying goods to government departments. As the Departmental Bid Committee had to choose between “supply experience to government departments” and “supply experience to private agencies”, Clause 4.2.1 when considered in its entirety, required manufacturers to have “supply experience to government departments.” Thus, like in the case of other bidders, a manufacturer was also required to have “supply experience” with a minimum quantity of supply being stipulated. Otherwise, it would not be possible to gauge the supply experience and capability of a manufacturer. The “supply experience” in respect of both the other bidders and manufacturer have thus been kept at par, at 30% quantity of the quoted items. In support of his submission that judicial review of the terms of a tender cannot be undertaken by a Writ Court, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Education & Ors. Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 19. He also submits that the Courts should not use a magnifying glass while looking into the terms and conditions of a tender notice and that Courts should not substitute the decision of experts with it’s own decision,
