SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Romesh Verma, JJ.
Sudhir Srivastava Innovations Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Medical Education & others - Respondents
CWP No. 1676 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Ankur Khandelwal & Mr.Jyotrimay Bhatt, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr.Malvika Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Zoeb Cutlerywala, Mr.Ankit Thakur, Mr.Sanket Singh Sengar and Ms.Aakansha Chauhan, Advocates

Courts refrain from interfering in tender evaluations by expert committees unless arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality proven; prioritising public interest and administrative expertise over private claims.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Challenge to rejection of bid in tender process for supply and installation of medical equipment - Store Purchase Rules - Multiple tenders floated with only two bidders each time - Technical committee inspected and demonstrated equipment, found non-compliance with specifications including points 2.2, 5, 13, 23 and staplers - Principles of judicial review in tender matters: court not appellate authority, interferes only if arbitrariness, irrationality, bias or mala fides; decision must be Wednesbury reasonable and in public interest - Petitioner failed to prove same; not approached with clean hands - Petition dismissed. (Paras 31-44)

(B) Tender evaluation - Expert technical committee's assessment not to be substituted by court lacking expertise - Ample opportunity for demonstration provided - Freedom of contract for government; no interference if bona fide and public interest served - Procedural equity and natural justice limited in commercial transactions. (Paras 31-33)

Facts of the case:
Government floated three tenders for robotic surgery machinery and equipment; only two firms participated each time; technical committee evaluated documents and conducted physical inspections/demonstrations; petitioner's product rejected for failing specific technical specifications after opportunities provided; contract awarded to compliant bidder after approvals; petitioner challenged rejection as arbitrary, violative of equality, ignoring preferences.

Findings of Court:
No merit in petition; rejection based on expert evaluation not arbitrary; procurement completed lawfully.

Issues: Whether technical rejection unfair/arbitrary/violative of equality; whether contradictory evaluation or ignored preferences vitiated process.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts exercise restraint in commercial/tender decisions, reviewing only for legality not soundness; expert technical findings prevail absent perversity; unsuccessful bidder must prove mala fides or irrationality; public interest prioritised over private grievances.

Result: Petition dismissed alongwith pending applications.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges tender rejection for fair evaluation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. re-tendering required due to fewer than three bidders. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 11)
3. technical committee rejects petitioner for non-compliance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. third tender inspection confirms petitioner's specification failures. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. procurement approved post-committee reaffirmation of rejection. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. parties argue tender fairness and judicial review scope. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. judicial restraint in bona fide tender decisions. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. petitioner unclean hands, failed technical compliance. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
9. no arbitrariness; deference to technical expertise. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
10. petition dismissed lacking merit. (Para 44)

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner-Company, holding a license to manufacture/ sale/distribute Class C or Class D medical devices such as Robotically Assisted Surgical System, Endosurgical Instruments & Accessories, has approached this Court seeking following substantive reliefs:-

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to consider the representation of Petitioner and evaluate the bid of the Petitioner and grant inspection to it with fairness, with respect to tender dated 17.08.2024, bearing Tender Ref. No. HFW (ME) F (7)-2/2023- Vol-I-4589.

(ii) Alternatively, issue a writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to re-issue fresh tender in the same nature and for the same purpose as tender dated 17.08.2024, bearing Tender Ref. No. HFW (ME) F (7)-2/2023-Vol-I-4589.”

2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 are Government of Himachal Pradesh or its functionaries, whereas respondent No. 5 is successful bidder from whom requisite machinery has been purchased by the respondents-State.

3. Facts in nutshell, as emerged from pleadings of parties, i.e. petition and replies thereto, are that the Government of Himachal Pradesh for installing machinery and equipment for Robotic Surgery at Atal Institute of Medical Super Specialty, Chamiana, Shimla and Dr.RPGMC Tanda, Kangra, had floated tender vide notice dated 18.7.2023, which was published in leading newspapers on 20.7.2023, last date wherein to submit and opening the bid was firstly extended up to 23.8.2023 and secondly up to 5.9.2023. However, only two bids from two firms i.e. present petitioner and respondent No. 5, were received. In view of provisions contained in H.P. Store Purchase Rules, 2013 especially Rule 19(4) and 19(5), matter was taken up by the Department with the Government vide letter dated 11.9.2023, for further direction with regard to further re-tendering the process as provided under the Rules. In response, vide letter dated 15.9.2023, Government conveyed its approval to initiate re-tendering for installation of Machinery and Equipment of Robotic Surgery with condition that process for re-tender should be finalized within fifteen days.

4. E-tender was floated for second time for supply and installation of requisite Machinery and Equipment vide notice dated 25.9.2023 with the date of opening of technical bid as 11.12.2023. Again only two bidders, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 5, participated in tender process. Matter was submitted by Director of Medical Education & Research (for short ‘DMER’) to the Government vide letter dated 13.12.2023 for approval of the Government to proceed further in accordance with Rules 19(4) and 19(5) of H.P. Store Purchase Rules, 2013.

5. For technically evaluating the documents and equipment after opening the technical bid, the Technical Committee was notified by the Government vide Notification dated 17.4.2023, comprising of following members:-

“1. Dr. Brij Sharma, Principal, AIMSS Chamiana, Shimla.

2. Dr. Surinder Singh Sodhi, Professor & Head, Deptt. of Anesthesia, IGMC, Shimla.

3. Dr. Puneet Mahajan,, Professor & Head, Deptt. of Surgery, IGMC, Shimla.

4. Dr. Kushla Pathania, Professor &

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top