Tender Age Restriction Challenge

Here are some relevant precedents and case laws that can strengthen the argument for allowing *-year-old vehicles to participate in the tender:
*. Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (*)
- Emphasizes that actions by the state must be non-arbitrary and reasonable.
*. Union of India v. International Trading Co. (*)
- The Supreme Court held that the government must act fairly and reasonably, and its actions should not be arbitrary or discriminatory.
*. Tata Cellular v. Union of India (*)
- The Supreme Court laid down the principles governing the judicial review of administrative actions, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness.
*. State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora and Company (*)
- The Court reiterated that legitimate expectations should be protected and that changes in policy must be justified with valid reasons.
*. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (*)
- The Supreme Court stated that the terms of a tender should not be arbitrary and that all tender participants should be treated fairly and equally.
These cases support the petitioner's argument that the reduction in the permissible age of vehicles is arbitrary and lacks a valid rationale.

Here are a few more precedents to further strengthen the argument:
*. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (*)
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the government must act in a fair and non-arbitrary manner in all its actions, including tenders.
*. M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. (*)
- This case underlined that the government’s decisions must be based on valid reasons and should align with public interest and fairness.
*. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (*)
- The Court highlighted that any exclusion from a tender process must be based on reasonable and fair criteria, ensuring equal opportunity for all eligible participants.
*. Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (*)
- The principle that the government must act in a manner that is fair and reasonable was reiterated, and changes in tender conditions must be justified.
*. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (*)
- The Supreme Court held that tender conditions which are not fair, transparent, or reasonable may be subject to judicial review and correction.
These additional cases reinforce the argument that the reduction in vehicle age criteria must be justified with valid reasons and must adhere to principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.