2026:HHC:11608 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 18818 of 2025

Reserved on: 24.03.2026

Decided on : 16.04.2026

Uploaded on: 16.04.2026

Process Color (P) Limited ...Petitioner

Versus

State of HP and another …Respondents.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Tavleen Singh, Ms. VallabiShukla, Mr.

Jeevan Kumar, Mr. Mohit and Ms. Ekta

Kumari, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional

General.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

An expression of interest was called for by respondent

No. 2 on 26.7.2025. The same had been called for finalization of

hologram specifications for sealing liquor bottles with advanced high

security features including track and trace capabilities within the State.

The purpose being to prevent sale of spurious/duplicate/illicit liquor in

the State. Thereby not only ensuring sale of genuine liquor to the

consumer but even augmenting the revenue of the State. The

expression of interest is appended with the writ petition as Annexure

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

-2-

P-3. In terms of the aforesaid expression of interest, only those

bidders who fulfilled the conditions detailed hereinbelow were allowed

to showcase features offered by way of a detailed

presentation/demonstration in the presence of the concerned

committee on 7.8.2025 at 2.30 P.M:-

a. Registration: The bidder should be registered under

the Indian Companies Act, 1956/2013 or Partnership

Firms (LLP) registered under LLP Act 2008 or

subsequent amendments.

b. Turnover: Should have turnover of at least 25 cr.

c. Experience: At least 3 years' experience with an in-

house master origination lab in India.

d. Orders executed: Should have supplied

EALs/Holograms to at least one State Excise

Department/UT.

2. The prospective bidders were to ensure submission of

documents and presentation till 5.8.2025 through email at the

specified email address. The petitioner had submitted its documents

and presentation on 04.08.2025 (Annexure P-5). At the presentation

held in pursuance to the expression of interest other than the

petitioner five companies had participated. Before the committee on

7.8.2025, no presentation/demonstration through video conferencing

had been made by the present petitioner due to paucity of time.

Hence the petitioner on 8.8.2025 had submitted additional information

(Annexures P-7 appended with the writ petition, R-2 and R-3

appended with the reply filed by respondent No 2).

-3-

3. Subsequent thereto, a meeting was held on 8.9.2025 for

finalization of the hologram specifications for tender purpose. Details

of the meeting have been appended with the reply filed by respondent

No. 2 as Annexure R-4. Features offered by prospective bidders were

presented in the meeting. Committee was of the view that features to

be included should be identified/selected in a manner that ensures

maximum participation and healthy competition in the tendering

process. As a result, a combination of both holographic and non-

holographic features for incorporation of tender documents were

shortlisted. Other than the aforesaid, State-wise comparison of

hologram features was also carried out to ensure that the selected

features/combination have been adopted by the other State. Besides

the aforesaid, the Committee, considering the harsh weather

conditions of the State, recommended use of polyester-based

environmental-friendly holograms. Further committee agreed that if a

prospective bidder wanted to offer additional features other than the

mandatory identified features, then the prospective bidder should be

permitted to do so without any additional cost.

4. Thereafter, the RFP was published on 24.10.2025. In

terms of the RFP, a pre-bid meeting was to be held on 31.10.2025 at

11.30 A.M. through video conferencing at the stated link. The bid

submission was to start on 7.11.2025 (11.00 A.M.), and the bid

-4-

submission was to end on 17.11.2025 (2.30 P.M.). Opening of e-

tender bids was to happen on 18.11.2025 (2.30 P.M.).

5. A pre-bid meeting in the case at hand was held on

31.10.2025. At the said meeting four entities besides the petitioner

had participated Proceedings of the tender committee meeting held

on 04.11.2025 for approval of responses prepared to the pre-bid

queries in the case at hand have been placed on record as Annexure

R-6 with the response of respondent no 2. Therein the scope and

ambit of the pre-bid clarifications have been specified in the following

terms;

” Pre-bid clarifications/revised clauses are meant to

remove ambiguities, provide equal opportunity,

incorporate justified changes, and ensure

transparency in the bidding process. By providing

clarifications and incorporating justified changes, the

procuring authority ensures a level playing field for

all participants, encourages wider participation, and

prevents restrictive conditions. This ensures

transparency, fairness, and accountability in

procurement which is in line with the necessary

guidelines as laid down in the applicable

Government of India and State Government

procurement policies”.

6. Other than the aforesaid, The Manual for Procurement of

Goods 2024, Chapter 5,specifically Para 5.2.4 thereof under the head

"Clarification of Tender Documents", details the scope and ambit of

the pre-bid clarifications (Annexure R-8 filed with the reply of R-2).

Relevant extract whereof reads as follow:-

-5-

"Only material queries and their responses shall be

uploaded on the website without revealing the identity of

the bidder making the query.

When the response to clarification changes the

requirement significantly and/or when there is not much

time left for the bidders to respond to such responses, the

time and date of submission of tenders may also be

suitably extended”.

7. In view of the aforestated, queries which were found

suitable by the committee were responded to by issuing a

corrigendum dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure R-7 filed with the reply of

R-2). Resultantly the last date of the bid submission was suitably

extended from 17.11.2025 to 29.11.2025 till 2.30 P.M, and the same

was to be opened on 1.12.2025 at 2.30 P.M. The principal grievance

of the petitioner is that the queries raised by the petitioner at the pre-

bid meeting, though received, were not taken into consideration when

the corrigendum was released on 20.11.2025 (Annexure P-12).

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present petition has been

filed seeking the following reliefs:-

1. To kindly issue writs, orders or directions

particularly writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondent/State to consider, decide

and incorporate the suggestions made by the

petitioner in its pre-bid queries (Annexure P-9) and

till then the Tender process may kindly be stayed in

the interest of justice; and

2. To kindly issue writs, orders or directions

particularly for clarification or reconsideration of the

specific conditions within the Tender

documentation that appear discriminatory or

prevent a “level playing field” for the bidders; and

-6-

3. To kindly issue writs, orders or directions

particularly for appropriate intervention to ensure

that all tender conditions are in full compliance with

established procurement guidelines and

constitutional principles of equity and non-

discrimination; and

4. To kindly issue writs, orders or directions for a

judicial review regarding certain tender stipulations

to ascertain their consistency with the principle of a

‘level playing field’ for all potential bidders; and

5. To kindly pause the current tender process and to

re-evaluate the process with the goal of re-issuing

a revised tender notice that promotes maximum

fairness and transparency; and

9. In the case at hand “tender jurisdiction” of the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked

by a party prior to participating in the tender. The judicial review of

such contractual matters has its own limitations. At the very outset a

reference to the judgement of the apex court in Uflex Ltd. v. State of

T.N., (2022) 1 SCC 165 wherein a word of caution qua interference in

such matters has been pronounced. The relevant extract whereof

reads as under:-

“The enlarged role of the Government in economic

activity and its corresponding ability to give

economic “largesse” was the bedrock of creating

what is commonly called the “tender jurisdiction”.

The objective was to have greater transparency

and the consequent right of an aggrieved party to

invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter

referred to as “the Constitution”), beyond the issue

of strict enforcement of contractual rights under the

civil jurisdiction. However, the ground reality today

is that almost no tender remains unchallenged.

-7-

Unsuccessful parties or parties not even

participating in the tender seek to invoke the

jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution. The public interest litigation (“PIL”)

jurisdiction is also invoked towards the same

objective, an aspect normally deterred by the Court

because this causes proxy litigation in purely

contractual matters.

2. The judicial review of such contractual matters

has its own limitations. It is in this context of judicial

review of administrative actions that this Court has

opined that it is intended to prevent arbitrariness,

irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala

fides. The purpose is to check whether the choice

of decision is made lawfully and not to check

whether the choice of decision is sound. In

evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the

parties are to be governed by principles of

commercial prudence. To that extent, principles of

equity and natural justice have to stay at a

distance.

3. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a tenderer

or contractor with a grievance can always seek

damages in a civil court and thus, “attempts by

unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances,

wounded pride and business rivalry, to make

mountains out of molehills of some

technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to

self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising

power of judicial review, should be resisted”.

10. The first and foremost contention raised by the petitioner

is with respect to the turnover clause mentioned on Page 9 of the

tender documents. As per the same, a bidder is required to have an

average annual turnover of not less than 24 crores during the

preceding three years (financial years 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25)

from all activities, including holograms. In this respect, it is contended

that for a business of less than five crores, the respondent’s

-8-

requirement to have a 24 crores annual turnover is excessive. The

same restricts participation of bidders. A comparison is sought to be

drawn with a similar tender floated in the year 2019 by respondent No.

1, wherein the requirement of turnover was only Rs. 5 crores. The

steep increase is therefore argued to be an unreasonable condition

imposed by the respondents. The petitioner submits that queries in

this respect had been raised at the pre-bid meeting held on

31.10.2025, however, the same have not been clarified by the

respondents till date.

11. The aforesaid submission of the petitioner is without any

merit. A perusal of the expression of interest dated 26.7.2025

(Annexure P-3) reveals that the approximate volume of holograms

required for one year is approximately ten crores in number. In this

respect, a perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 2, specifically

para 7 of the preliminary submissions, categorically reflects that the

turnover condition has been fixed keeping in view the GeM

specifications, wherein the minimum turnover to be asked from an

OEM is four times the value of the tender. The said specification is

discernible from Annexure R-10 (Page 312) appended with the reply

filed by respondent No. 2. Other than the aforesaid, the turnover

requirement specified in the tender has been fixed to ensure the

capability of the bidder. The parameter is therefore neither found to be

unreasonable or ex facie irrelevant. In every tender there is a

-9-

qualifying parameter with respect to turnover. The Court cannot sit

over in judgment on what should be the turnover required for an entity

to participate. Besides insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it cannot

contend that all and sundry should be permitted to participate in

matters of this nature. In tender matters it is a well settled position of

law that rules of natural justice have no role hence the argument that

query raised at the pre-bid meeting has not been responded to is of

no consequence more so keeping in view the scope and ambit of the

pre-bid clarifications detailed supra in paragraph five. Pre-bid queries

serve only to clarify, not to create enforceable obligation. A

prospective bidder cannot claim a vested right, i.e., a suggestion be

implemented. Prospective bidders cannot dictate tender

specifications.

12. The next contention raised by the petitioner is with

respect to HSSMS certification. It is submitted by the petitioner that

introducing the condition in clause No. 12 of Section 2.1 of the tender

document is very demanding, as only companies with big

infrastructure will have the certificate, and therefore competition would

be restricted. Other than the aforesaid, it is submitted that a query in

this respect had been raised, however, the same has not been

responded to.

13. From a perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 2,

specifically para 8 of the preliminary submissions, it is evident that the

-10-

HSSMS certification in the bid was included on the direction of user

department to ensure the following:-

 The hologram creation process is secure.

 The master/original hologram design is protected

against theft or duplication.

 The supply chain is controlled (so unauthorized

copies don’t leak).

 Manufacturing quality is consistent, reducing risk of

defects.

The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be

open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to

tender is in the realm of contract. In the matter of

formulating conditions of a tender document and

awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to

be conceded to the authorities.Incorporation of the

HSSMS certification in the case at hand has been

made for valid reasons hence cannot be termed to

be irrational, unreasonable or ex facie

irrelevant.Even otherwise the Court cannot sit over

in judgment on a qualifying parameter with respect

to technology. As has already been stated in tender

matters it is a well settled position of law that rules

of natural justice and equity have no role to play.

14. It is next contended by the petitioner that the tender in the

case at hand requires the bidder to develop a very simple hologram

having no strong security features. As per the petitioner, the

“MASTER” of the tender does not have any updated or adequate

security features. Further, as per the petitioner, previous tender

specifications in this respect should have been incorporated, as no

counterfeit incidents were recorded in the State since 2019. Other

than the aforesaid, according to the petitioner, specifications supplied

to the respondents in pursuance of the expression of interest dated

-11-

8.8.2025 and in the pre-bid query dated 31.10.2025 in this respect

have also not been considered.

15. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the

proceedings of the meeting held on 8.9.2025 pertaining to finalization

of the hologram specifications for tender purposes, i.e., Annexure R-4

(Page 278), appended with the reply filed by respondent No. 2, which

reads as follows:-

“ It was informed that the department is presently

using polyester based holograms incorporating a

combination of both holographic and non-

holographic features. The holographic features are

visible to the naked eye, whereas the non-

holographic features require a special device for

verification.

The features offered by the bidders (Annexure-B)

were presented in the meeting.After detailed

deliberations, the Committee was of the view that

the features to be included should be

identified/selected in a manner that ensures

maximum participation and healthy competition in

the tendering process. Based on the detailed

analysis of the features offered, the Committee

considering the requirement of Department and to

ensure healthy competition, shortlisted a

combination of both holographic and non-

holographic features for incorporation in the tender

document. The details of the shortlisted features

are at Annexure-C State-wise comparison of

hologram features was also carried out to ensure

that the selected features, or combinations thereof,

have been adopted by other states as well. The

details are provided at Annexure-D.

The Committee considering the harsh weather

conditions of the state, recommended the use of

polyester-based and environmentally friendlyholo-

grams. The Committee also finalized the general

-12-

Hologram material specifications for tender pur-

pose. Detail at Annexure-E.

Further, the Committee unanimously agreed that if

any bidder, in addition to the identified mandatory

features, wishes to offer additional features inclu-

sive of the quoted cost in the tender then the bid-

der shall be permitted to do so. It was further em-

phasized that although not mandatory, bidders are

encouraged to offer a mobile app-based solution

for hologram authentication, if available, at no addi-

tional cost.”

16. From the aforesaid it is evident that at the time of

finalization of the hologram the committee had been informed of the

specifications of the hologram presently being used by the

department. From amongst the features offered the Committee

selected in a manner that ensures maximum participation and healthy

competition in the tendering process. Besides the aforestated while

selecting the specifications the requirement of Department was also

kept in sight. The Committee permitted offering of additional features

over and above the identified mandatory features within the quoted

cost in the tender by a bidder. In formulating the specifications

relevant factors were taken into consideration.

17. As already stated supra, the Court cannot sit over in

judgment on a qualifying parameter with respect to technology.

Besides we cannot say whether these conditions are better than what

were prescribed earlier for in such matters the authority calling for

tender is the best judge.The author of the tender is best placed to

determine its commercial and technical requirements. In the case at

-13-

hand we are concerned with sale of liquor. The objective has been set

out by the State Government i.e. use of such technology as would

prevent spurious liquor from being sold. It is a well-known fact that a

large revenue collection comes to the state through sale of liquor. It

thus must be left to the State Government to see how best to

maximise its revenue and what is the technology to be utilised to

prevent situations like spurious liquor, which in turn would impede

revenue collection, apart from causing damage to the consumers.

18. Besides the aforesaid, it is submitted by the petitioner

that, as per the requirements of the tender, a polyester-base hologram

is to be provided. It is further submitted by the petitioner that in its

letter dated 8.8.2025 addressed in pursuance of the expression of

interest and pre-bid query dated 31.1.2025, the petitioner had

indicated the availability of environment-friendly biodegradable

holograms, however, the same were never considered by the

respondents.

19. In the meeting held on 8.9.2025 pertaining to finalization

of the hologram specifications for tender purposes, Annexure R-4

(Page 278) the Committee after considering the presently in

use polyester based holograms, features offered by the bidders and

keeping in view the harsh weather conditions of the state

recommended the use of polyester based environmentally friendly

holograms. This Court cannot sit over in judgment on a parameter with

-14-

respect to technology. Besides the respondents are best placed to

determine technical requirements to subserve the twin requirements

of augmenting state revenue and impeding the sale of spurious liquor.

Hence the plea sought to be raised is without any merit.

20. It is further contended that the previous tender floated in

2019 contained an experience clause, which now stands completely

deleted, and in the present tender, a five-year experience clause has

been incorporated in Section 2 of the tender document. Last but not

the least, it is contended that three major clauses contained in the

previous tender of 2019 have now been omitted, namely: (a) the

bidder or its associate or any constituent thereof should not have

been involved in any criminal activity. Further should not have been

convicted of any criminal offence. In this regard an affidavit was

earlier required to be filed. It is submitted that this clause was

addressed in the corrigendum dated 20.11.2025, but it was restricted

only to matters relating to holograms, (b) the bidder should not have

any conflict of interest in the manufacture/sale/distribution of liquor at

any point of time, for which an affidavit was also required to be

submitted, and (c) a bidder who is currently supplying security holograms

for affixation for liquor purposes in any adjacent State touching the border of

Himachal Pradesh was previously disentitled to participate.

21. Terms and conditions have been prescribed apparently

bearing in mind the nature of contract. In the matter of formulating

-15-

conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater

latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities. Unless the

action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of

its statutory powers interference by Courts is not warranted. No case

of mala fides has been made out to the effect that the terms and

conditions of the tender are tailor-made to suit a particular bidder.

Besides whether these conditions are better than what were

prescribed earlier cannot be said by this court for in such matters the

authority calling for tenders is the best judge.

22. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has failed to

persuade this Court to interfere in the tender process by exercising

powers of judicial review, therefore, the present writ petition being

devoid of merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous

applications, if any.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi)

Chief Justice Judge

16

th

April, 2026

(Tarun)