Citation: Micky Traders v. L.R.Y. Labour Contractor & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 13042–13043 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22161 and 23127 of 2026), decided: September 21, 2026, 2026 INSC 1025
A tendering authority’s interpretation of its own tender conditions is subject to judicial review if it is patently arbitrary or contradicts the plain text of the document. Specifically, mandatory specialized experience requirements (such as collecting statutory user charges for public bodies) cannot be satisfied by incidental money collection from unrelated commercial activities like running a cattle fair, and a higher financial bid cannot be used by authorities to waive essential eligibility criteria or cure a bidder’s lack of qualifications.
In February 2026, the Market Committee in Ludhiana invited tenders for collecting user charges on vehicles utilizing Mandi infrastructure for one year. Micky Traders submitted the highest financial bid and was awarded the contract, which was challenged by the second-highest bidder (L.R.Y. Labour Contractor) before the High Court on the grounds that Micky Traders lacked the mandatory two years of experience in collecting user charges for a government or public body.
The High Court ruled in favor of the second-highest bidder, quashing the award given to Micky Traders because their past experience was actually in organizing cattle fairs rather than collecting statutory user charges, and because they lacked valid completion certificates. Dissatisfied with this decision, both Micky Traders and the Market Board filed appeals in the Supreme Court of India to challenge the High Court’s order.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that Micky Traders did not meet the mandatory experience criteria required by the tender because organizing cattle fairs is entirely different from collecting statutory user charges for a public body. The Court emphasized that a tendering authority’s interpretation of its rules must be logical and consistent with the text, and held that quoting a higher price cannot cure a bidder’s fundamental lack of eligibility.
