document requires a bidder to have a supply experience of Rs. 10 Crores in at least 1 year out of the last 3 years. However, the same tender document requires the bidder to have an 'average turnover' of Rs. 10 Crores in 'each' financial year out of the last 3 years. These two clauses are contradictory to each other and also the clause in the qualification point is contradictory to itself as turnover can either be average of 3 years, or in each of the 3 years, but not both. He submits that Clause 20 read with Qualification No. 5 of Annexure-B; clause 21(h), Clause 21(l) read with Qualification Point No.8 of Annexure-B, Clause 21(q), Clause 22 and Clause 26 of the Part -I of the bid document of NIeT dated 20.02.2024 are tainted with unreasonableness. Applying the Wednesbury Rule of arbitrariness and unreasonableness the aforesaid clauses of the Part-I of the bid document read with qualification points No.5 and No.8, mentioned in Annexure-B of the bid document are shockingly disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. The doctrine of proportionality demands that there must be a nexus with the terms and conditions of the contract read as a whole and the objective which is sought to be achieved with the tender conditions. But, in the instant case, no nexus is found and therefore, the petitioner had represented before the State authorities regarding the same, however, the respondent authorities failed to consider the same in its proper perspective, compelling the petitioner to institute the present proceeding. Therefore, he submits that the Annexure-B, attached to the NIeT dated 20.02.2024 is liable to be interfered with direction to the respondent authorities to re-evaluate both the technical and financial stages and thereafter to finalise the tender.
