Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. Mr. Brain Da Silva, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sarabvir Singh Oberai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondent No.1, Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 / Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited and Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Mr. Shiv Sewak and Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :

“i. Issue a Writ of appropriate nature holding that the tender process initiated vide NIT dated 24.09.2025 is not fair, transparent, non-discriminatory and therefore needs to be set aside.

ii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Technical Evaluation Criteria and marking system as provided in clause 3.5 of the tender document dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-10), as the same is bad in law.

iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ thereby directing the Respondents to initiate a fresh tender by adopting a transparent and fair procedure for Technical Evaluation marking system and Financial Evaluation.

iv. Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

v. Costs be awarded to the Petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at 1st Floor, Global Tower, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and is engaged in providing emergency management services including ambulance services, mobile medical units and other medical emergency response services. The Petitioner has successfully operated the Dial 108 Emergency Ambulance Service in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and has also been operating the Dial 104 Health Helpline service.

4. The Petitioner had earlier been awarded a contract in the year 2019 for operating the 108 Sanjeevi Express Emergency Ambulance Service in the State of Chhattisgarh. Upon the expiry of the said contract period, Respondent No. 2 floated a fresh Request for Proposal dated 09.04.2025 for operation, maintenance and management of the 108 Sanjeevi Express ambulance services. Certain arbitrary conditions in the tender were challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in WPC No. 2271/2025, and this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 quashed the clauses relating to disqualification based on past blacklisting.

5. Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted its bid. Although the technical bids were opened and the marks of the bidders were published, the Respondent authorities cancelled the tender on 07.07.2025 citing “technical reasons”. Thereafter, a Second Tender dated 11.07.2025 was floated and subsequently a corrigendum dated 28.08.2025 substantially altered the technical evaluation criteria and allocation of marks without assigning any reasons. Due to such changes, only one bidder participated and the Second Tender was also cancelled.

6. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 issued a Third Tender dated 24.09.2025 retaining the same modified technical evaluation criteria. Despite objections raised by several bidders in the pre-bid meeting, the Respondents refused to modify the criteria. As a result, only one bidder namely EMRI Green Health Services participated in the tender process. The Petitioner has discovered that the changes in the evaluation criteria were introduced at the behest of the said bidder, thereby eliminating fair competition. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the arbitrary and discrimi