Judicial review in tender matters is limited; courts respect authority discretion unless conditions are arbitrary or biased.

ORDER

Order No. 22.08.2025

01. 1. Questioning the validity of tender call notice dated 2^nd August, 2025 vide Annexure-1 issued by the Superintendent, Maharaja Krishna Chandra Gajapati Medical College Hospital, Berhampur- opposite party no.2, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):-

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the aforesaid Tender Call Notice dtd.02/08/2025, issued by the O.P. No.2, under Annexure-1, shall not be set aside after declaring the same is illegal;

And in the event the opp. Parties file no show cause or file insufficient or false cause the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to make the rule nisi absolute; And/or may pass any other writ/writs, Order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. As is revealed from the writ petition, the Superintendent of the Maharaja Krishna Chandra Gajapati Medical College Hospital, Berhampur-opposite party no.2 invited sealed tenders for “supply of Orthopedic Implant items”. Alleging that clause-3 of the tender call notice made it imperative that tenderer should possess valid MD 42 (Medical Device 42) license issued by the competent authority of Government of India under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, which is onerous condition as “hardly any intending tenderer from Berhampur, Ganjam is equipped with the same”.

2.1. It is further alleged that varieties of such implant are available, which ought to have been incorporated in the notice inviting tender. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions as stipulated in the tender call notice are such that none of the tenderer can fulfill.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it is for the author of the tender to decide the requirement with respect to participant as also the specified items.

5. Heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Debasis Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

6. Upon hearing the counsel for respective parties, this Court is not persuaded by the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of “one 6 hole small DCP with screws” with respect to “item no.IMP0542-Orthopedics, Polytrauma” other accompaniments necessary for use of such item should have been included for supply. It is submitted that varieties of such items are available in the market. This Court has no expertise to specify the items. The requirement and need for use in the Institution is the domain of the tendering authority. This Court is afraid to indulge itself in specifying what is required for the Institution at the behest of the petitioner.

7. In the context of challenging the tender condition which is alleged to have been tailor-made to suit a particular bidder, the scope of intervention of this Court is discussed in Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1967 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as follows:

“9. Now so far as the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions is concerned, what was challenged before the High Court was one of the tender conditions/clauses. The High Court has specifically