Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 16279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J. L. Odedra, JJ
BIPSON SURGICAL PRIVATE LIMITEDV/sGUJARAT MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3139 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mitul K Shelat, Hitesh M Sabhnani
For the Respondents: Dhawan M Jayswal
A complainant in a tender process must comply with the specific tender conditions, including the payment of a mandatory deposit, before the authority is obligated to investigate the complaint.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the eligibility of a second respondent in a tender process, alleging non-compliance with tender conditions and seeking the rejection of the said tender. The first respondent contended that under Clause 15 of the tender conditions, a complaint would only be investigated upon the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The primary issue was whether the first respondent was required to investigate the complaint without the mandatory deposit. The court reasoned that the petitioner is required to deposit the specified sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to enable the Corporation to conduct an inquiry, as per the agreed tender conditions. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding tender eligibility and the requirement of a security deposit for filing a complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. mandatory compliance with tender conditions as a prerequisite for administrative investigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. It is the case of the petitioner that it had lodged a complaint regarding eligibility of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the tender submitted by the second respondent was not in compliance with all the tender conditions and, therefore, the tender was to be rejected.
2. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that despite a complaint being lodged in this regard, no action was taken by the first respondent.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that as per the Clause 15 of the tender condition, the Corporation would investigate into a complaint only if the complainant were to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He also submits that if the said sum is deposited by the petitioner, the complaint would be looked into and if ultimately it is found to be true, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would be refunded and if it is not found to be untrue, the same would be forfeited.
4. In our view, since the petitioner has lodged a complaint, with the second respondent, he would be required to deposit sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to enable the Corporation to look into his complaint and make an inquiry.
5. Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner will deposit sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within the period of one week. If the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited by the petitioner, the Corporation, in compliance with Clause 15 of the tender conditions, shall investigate into the complaint and pass appropriate orders.
6. The complaint shall be decided within a period of two weeks from the date of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).
7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
