Judicial review in public procurement is limited to ensuring transparency and fairness. Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the tendering authority regarding eligibility criteria or technical specifications, provided such conditions are rationally connected to the requirement of ensuring reliability and quality in the procured goods.

ORDER :

N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.

[1] The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, has filed this petition seeking quashing of two tender notifications which were issued for the supply of Ultrasound Machines. A prayer is also made to direct the 2nd respondent, Gujarat Medical Services Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), to re-frame Clause No. 2.1 sub-clause (ii) of the additional terms and conditions relating to turnover and work experience.

[2] The Corporation, in February 2025, had issued a notification and floated tenders for the purchase of 108 and 63 Ultrasound Machines. The petitioner had participated in both the tenders, but the tender of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill certain eligibility criteria. Consequently, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.15493 of 2025 before this Court. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner asserts that he came to know from the official website of the Government e-Marketplace portal (i.e., the "GeM portal") that the said tenders had been cancelled, and in view of the said cancellation, he withdrew the writ petition that he had filed.

[3] It will be pertinent to state here that in this tender of February 2025, the petitioner had submitted a bid as a reseller.

[4] On 03.02.2026, the Corporation, through the GeM portal, floated two tenders, one in respect of supply of 260 Ultrasound Machines and another in respect of 66 Ultrasound Machines.

[5] The petitioner has filed this petition on 13.02.2026 contending that the criteria prescribed for minimum eligibility in respect of the minimum average financial turnover of the bidder for the past three years, the OEM turnover criteria, and the past performance criteria are illegal and are therefore required to be quashed; consequently, the tender itself is required to be quashed, or, in the alternative, the said criteria are to be reframed.

[6] Shri Karan Bhosle, learned counsel basically sought to challenge the tender clauses relating to the necessity of having three years’ experience in the manufacturing and selling of Ultrasound Machines, and the past performance clause, which required the petitioner to have supplied 10% of the bid quantity in the last three years. Shri Bhosle, also contended that the requirement of the bidder having a minimum average annual financial turnover of four times the bid value, or the actual production of the bidder being at least twice the bid value, was unreasonable. It was sought to be contended that these clauses ran counter to the 'Make in India' policy and, therefore, the same would have to be quashed.

[6.1] Shri Bhosle, learned counsel also indicated that the petitioner could not have consciously participated in the bid process knowing fully well that his bid would be rejected as being non-compliant with the tender conditions, and therefore he had filed the writ petition challenging the very clauses which excluded him from making his bid and which had created an uneven playing field. Shri Bhosle, also pointed out that the terms of the impugned tenders varied vastly from the earlier tenders for the very same product, and this was also to basically eliminate him from competing. He argued that just to ensure that the petitioner was eliminated from the entire process, unnecessary and unnecessarily high parameters were set.

[7] Mr. G. H. Virk, learned Government Pleader, o