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
| 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 &
Courts refrain from interfering in tender evaluations by expert committees unless arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality proven; prioritising public interest and administrative expertise ov....
Judicial review of tender processes is limited to the decision-making process. Courts will not interfere with commercial decisions unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. Participation i....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, the importance of punctilious and rigid enforcement of tender terms, and the uniform application of tender requirements to....
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for free play in the joints by the authorities and the interest of public service. The court emphasized the importance of minimal interfer....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; courts should respect expert evaluations unless proven arbitrary or unreasonable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.