The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a private printing company challenging a tender floated by the Bihar State Textbook Publishing Corporation Limited (the “Corporation”) for school textbook printing and supply. The petitioner complained that the tender allegedly excluded “non-local” enterprises and therefore violated the State’s own “Bihar Purchase Preference Policy, 2024.” The Division Bench, led by Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, held that the tender conditions were valid, that the Purchase Preference Policy provides preference—not a blanket right of participation—to local enterprises, and that the petitioner had not even attempted to submit a bid before rushing to court. The writ petition was therefore rejected.
The dispute arose because the Corporation’s Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) required bidders to (i) operate a printing press facility situated in Bihar and (ii) maintain a minimum 10,000 sq. ft. storage space within Bihar. The petitioner—a registered small enterprise engaged in printing, based outside Bihar but with GST registration in Bihar—argued that such requirements effectively barred “non-local” printers and were contrary to the State’s Purchase Preference Policy. According to the petitioner, the policy defines “local” and “non-local” enterprises and prohibits exclusion of the latter, unless the State demonstrates adequate local capacity and competition. The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs v. Banaras Hindu University (2022) 8 SCC 730 to contend that a procuring agency cannot impose conditions contrary to governing rules or policy.
The State, represented by the learned Advocate General, opposed the writ on multiple grounds. First, the petitioner never submitted a bid; the last date for bidding (20.09.2024) had passed well before the writ petition was instituted (registered on 26.10.2024). Second, the Purchase Preference Policy of 2024 merely confers “preference” to local enterprises in procurement; it does not mandate inclusion of non-local bidders or create an entitlement for them to participate regardless of tender-specific technical needs. Third, the NIT’s requirements for on-ground printing and storage facilities inside Bihar were rational and essential for inspection, quality control, logistics, and time-bound delivery of school textbooks across the State. Fourth, even on facts, the petitioner did not meet the basic eligibility criteria regarding in-State printing and storage facilities.
After examining the policy and the NIT, the Court agreed with the State. It emphasized that the “Bihar Purchase Preference Policy, 2024” is designed to facilitate growth of local industry—including Micro and Small Enterprises and start-ups—by giving purchase preference where appropriate. It is not a universal inclusion mandate for non-local entities. The policy envisions scenarios in which bids might be limited to local enterprises if the Nodal Department finds adequate local capacity and competition; however, even in the absence of such a formal restriction, a procuring entity can prescribe tender-specific eligibility conditions that are rationally connected to the subject of procurement.
The Bench also distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in Krishna Rai, noting that it pertained to service law and recruitment processes; its broad principle—that selection bodies cannot deviate from rules—does not translate into a ban on tender-specific technical conditions in procurement when there is no inconsistency with the overarching policy. Here, the Purchase Preference Policy provides a framework for preference, not a right to participate for all non-local bidders. The NIT’s insistence on an operational printing press and adequate storage space inside Bihar was found to be a legitimate, procurement-related eligibility condition, especially given the need for on-site inspection of machinery, quality assurance, and timely distribution of textbooks.
Importantly, the Court underscored a threshold bar: a bidder who does not even attempt to participate in a tender generally cannot challenge the tender conditions later, particularly when the bidder is admittedly unable to satisfy the eligibility criteria. In this case, the petitioner lodged objections and even an appeal under the policy’s complaint mechanism but never uploaded a bid. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
This ruling clarifies three practical points for procurement in Bihar:
- Procurement policies that grant “preference” to local enterprises do not create automatic participation rights for non-local entities. The government may structure tender eligibility to reflect operational realities—such as the need for in-state printing, warehousing, and inspections—when the goods must be produced and delivered within tight timelines.
- Enterprises seeking to challenge tender terms should first attempt participation if feasible. A failure to bid—especially when the enterprise does not meet basic eligibility—undermines the credibility of a legal challenge and may result in dismissal at the threshold.
- For departments and state corporations, the judgment signals that tender conditions tied to on-ground capacity (e.g., location of essential facilities, storage, inspection feasibility) are sustainable when they are rationally connected to the procurement objective and do not contradict the governing policy. The State’s policy aims at industrialization and MSME promotion can also pass Article 14 scrutiny when they are grounded in legitimate state objectives and designed to foster fair competition among those who meet eligibility norms.
In effect, this decision supports the State’s ability to design tenders that prioritize reliability, logistics, and quality control—particularly in sectors like textbook printing where timing, distribution, and verifiable capacity are vital to public interest. At the same time, it serves as a caution to out-of-state bidders: participation and compliance with eligibility are often prerequisites to seeking judicial review of tender conditions.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether the NIT unlawfully excluded “non-local” enterprises under the Bihar Purchase Preference Policy, 2024
• Court’s Decision: No. The policy provides purchase preference to local enterprises; it is not an inclusion mandate for all non-local bidders. The NIT did not impose a blanket exclusion; it prescribed eligibility requiring in-State printing and storage capacity, which is permissible and rational. - Whether the procuring entity (the Corporation) deviated from State policy by insisting on a printing press and 10,000 sq. ft. storage space in Bihar
• Court’s Decision: No deviation. The conditions are tethered to quality control and logistics for textbook supply and do not contradict the policy’s framework. The policy allows preference to local enterprises and, where the Nodal Department finds adequate local capacity and competition, restriction to locals; here, the tender’s operational requirements stand on their own merits as eligibility criteria. - Whether a bidder who did not submit a bid can challenge the tender conditions
• Court’s Decision: Generally no. The petitioner neither bid nor satisfied the eligibility requirements. Without participation—or at least demonstrable ability to comply—the challenge was not entertained. - Applicability of Krishna Rai (2022) 8 SCC 730 to procurement eligibility conditions
• Court’s Decision: Inapplicable. Krishna Rai arose in the recruitment context and does not prohibit tender-specific, rational eligibility criteria in public procurement where the governing policy is not contradicted.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)
- Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs and Others v. Banaras Hindu University and Others, (2022) 8 SCC 730 — cited by the petitioner to argue that selection authorities cannot set conditions contrary to governing rules/policy.
Case Title
M/s General Offset Printing Press Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16569 of 2024.
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy. (Oral Judgment dated 29.10.2024)
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the petitioner: Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
- For the respondents/State: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General.
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTY1NjkjMjAyNCMxI04=-4YvIsp5UF7M=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
