Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-39639-2025 (O&M)

M/s Jyoti Electricals and another
versus
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh and others

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present: Mr. Aditya Grover, Advocate and
Ms. Divya Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate
Ms. Kriti Avasthi, Advocate and
Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 3.
Mr. Pritpal Singh Nijjar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Naik, Advocate and
Ms. Ishita Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Balraj Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Neha Rani, Advocate and
Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya Grover, Divya Arora
For the Respondents: Avinit Avasthi, Kriti Avasthi, Nikhil Goyal, Pritpal Singh Nijjar, Pankaj Nanhera, Anurag Mor, Ashish Naik, Ishita Arora, Aman Pal, Balraj Sharma, Neha Rani, Rajender Kumar

In tender matters, Constitutional Courts exercise judicial restraint and do not interfere with administrative decisions unless there is demonstrable perversity, arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of essential tender conditions, maintaining that the tender-authorizing body is the best judge of its own requirements.

Headnote:(A) Tender - Requirement of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) authorization - Failure to satisfy mandatory condition - Petitioners submitted an authorization certificate corresponding to a lapsed tender in response to a new tender notice - OEM clarified it did not back the petitioning bidder for the specific project - The court found that in the absence of valid OEM backing, the bidder was ineligible to execute the contract as per the tender terms. (Paras 36, 38, 39)

(B) Judicial Review in Tender Matters - Scope - Courts should not sit in appeal over administrative decisions regarding tender disqualifications unless terms are violated or the process is perverse or mala fide - The Tendering Authority is the best judge of its requirements, and consistency and fairness are the guiding principles. (Paras 19, 21, 23, 24, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their technical bid for a fire suppression system installation project. The petitioners had utilized an old OEM certificate from a previous tender for a new tender notice. The respondent-institute verified the authenticity of the authorization with the OEM, who confirmed the lack of authorization for the second tender. The institute subsequently declared the petitioner ineligible while qualifying other bidders who provided valid OEM support.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was ineligible as it failed the mandatory requirement of valid OEM authorization. The institute's decision was deemed fair, transparent, and based on objective expert verification, devoid of the alleged mala fides.

Issues: Whether the rejection of a bid for failing to submit a fresh mandatory OEM authorization certificate for a new tender was arbitrary and whether the process was tainted by mala fides and hyper-technicality.

Ratio Decidendi: The project’s successful execution required long-term technical support from the OEM, making the authorization an essential term of the contract; failure to provide this in response to the specific tender notice rendered the bid technically non-compliant, and the court’s limited scope of judicial review does not extend to substituting its own technical judgment for that of the procurement authority.

Result: Petition dismissed.

1.	The date when the judgment is reserved	13.02.2026
2.	The date when the judgment is pronounced	24.03.2026
3.	The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website	27.03.2026
4.	Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced	Full
5.	The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof	Not applicable

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners challenge communication dated 23.12.2025, through which the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) has rejected petitioner No.1’s technical bid submitted by it in pursuance to a notice inviting tender bearing No.PGI/Engg./Elec./2025-26/18 (for short – the second NIT).

THE FACTS

2. Petitioner No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and petitioner No. 2 is its sole proprietor. Petitioner No.1 is engaged in the execution of electrical works in public institutions including the Institute and claims to have an unblemished track record. In May 2025, through a notice inviting tender bearing No.PGI/Engg./Elec./2025-26/05 (for short – the first NIT) the Institute invited bids for installation and maintenance of a gas based fire suppression system in all electrical panels at various locations of the Institute. The bid, along with the supporting documents, was required to be scanned and uploaded on the Institute’s website by 11:00 a.m. of 13.05.2025. As per clause No.1(c) under Section-III of the first NIT, which is relevant, amongst other documents, the bidder was required to upload an authorization certificate/undertaking from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (for short – the OEM) that the OEM would technically support the bidder throughout the execution of the contract and for the comprehensive maintenance for the useful life of the system as also that the OEM would provide all the spares required for the healthy functioning of the firefighting equipment for at least 07 years from the date of its installation.

3. In pursuance to the first NIT the petitioner submitted its bid along with the required supporting documents which included a certificate from the OEM dated 15.05.2025 which was in terms of the afore referred clause 1(c) under Section-III of the first NIT.

4. The first NIT, published in May 2025, lapsed.

5. On 15.11.2025, for the same work, as above, through the second NIT, the Institute invited fresh bids. In response to the second NIT, the last date to submit bids was 02.12.2025 and the date for opening of eligibility cum-technical bids was 03.12.2025. In the second NIT, clause No.1(c) under Section III, with regard to submission of undertaking / authorization certificate by the OEM was the same as in the first NIT.

6. Responding to the second NIT, petitioner No.1 applied afresh. In support of its bid, along with other documents, purportedly, in terms of clause No.1 (c) contained in Section III of the second NIT, petitioner No.1 uploaded a copy of the OEM’s undertaking / authorization certificate dated 15.05.2025 which had earlier been uploaded by it in response to the first NIT.

7. On 03.12.2025, the technical bids were opened and through communication dated 06.12.2025, the Institute sought certain clarifications from petitioner No.1 which were duly responded to. Thereafter, on 09.12.2025 petitioner No.1 wrote to the Institute bringing to its notice that the copy of the OEM’s undertaking dated 15.05.2025, uploaded in pursuance to the second NIT, was for the same work for which bids had been earlier invited by the Institute through the first NIT and that in such undertaking the OEM had clearly undertaken to provide full technical support not only at the time of installation of the gas based fire suppression system at various locations in the Institute but also to provide all necessary spares for at least 07 years thereafter. The Institute then wrote to the OEM, a copy of whos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9600

Cases Referred (4)