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. 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 & Head, Deptt. of OBG, KNH M&C, IGMC, Shimla. 5. Dr. Pamposh Raina, Professor & Head, Deptt. of Urology AIMSS, Chamiana.” 6. With prior approval of the Government, tender was opened and in pursuance to request letter dated 30.1.2024 of DMER, Technical Committee undertook exercise of evaluating documents technically for submission of Technical Evaluation Report and during that exercise, in its meeting held on 5.2.2024, after detailed discussion, Technical Committee decided to visit and inspect the quoted products of both Companies at the place and convenience of the participating firms in the tender to check the technical specifications and other compliance and quality of the product, before finalizing technical evaluation. 7. Consequently vide letter dated 9.2.2024, DMER sought permission of the Government to visit locations where Robotic Surgery Equipment of both Companies/bidders were available for display inspection. The Government permitted to visit and inspect the equipment vide communication dated 16.2.2024. 8. Technical Committee visited and inspected the equipment on 12.3.2024 at BLK Max Super Specialty Hospital, Pusa Road, Rajendra Place, New Delhi and 404-405, phase 3, Udyog Vihar 3, Sector 20 Gurugram, belonging to petitioner and respondent No. 5 respectively and, thereafter submitted the report dated 22.4.2024 as under:- “M/s Intuitive Surgical India Private Limited fulfills all the technical specifications of the tender. M/s Sudhir Srivastava innovation Private Limited does not fulfill technical specification’s point numbers 2.1, 2.2, 4, 5, 13, 23, 24 and A2 (Staplers) of the tender and hence rejected.” 9. M/s Sudhir Srivastava innovation Private Limited does not fulfill technical specification’s point numbers 2.1, 2.2, 4, 5, 13, 23, 24 and A2 (Staplers) of the tender and hence rejected.” 9. Vide letter dated 3.7.2024, DMER apprised the Higher Authorities with respect to inspection dated 12.3.2024 and report submitted by the Committee dated 22.4.2024, which was discussed on 18.6.2024 after lifting of Model Code of Conduct. 10. In response, Government, vide letter dated 16.7.2024, received in the Office of DMER on 18.7.2024, conveyed that in view of Rule 19(b)(4) of the H.P. Store Purchase Rules, 2013, as the number of firms participated in bid were less than three, process for re-tendering may be initiated due to administrative reasons. 11. Accordingly, by issuing corrigendum dated 9.8.2024, process of tender evaluation was stopped. DMER, for third time, floated E-tender for supply and installation of Machinery and Equipment vide notice dated 17.8.2024, which was published in leading newspapers including the Tribune on 20.8.2024. Again bids from only two firms, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 5, were received. Detailed tender document was available for submission on the website of the Government of Himachal Pradesh from 19.8.2024 to 11.9.2024 up to 2:00 P.M. 12. On 29.8.2024 petitioner sent a letter to respondent No. 1 stating therein that it has participated in the pre-bid meeting which was held on 28.8.2024 between petitioner and respondent No. 1. On 30.9.2024, petitioner submitted his bid in response to the tender. 13. DMER vide letter dated 8.10.2024 requested the Government to issue necessary directions in the matter so as to finalize the process of tender floated for third time as per H.P. Store Purchase Rule 19 (b) Advertised Tender System (4). Department in light of relevant Rules decided to process the tender further and referred the matter to the Government for approval. 14. Accordingly meeting of Technical Committee was scheduled on 14.11.2024 to open the technical bid. 15. Department in light of relevant Rules decided to process the tender further and referred the matter to the Government for approval. 14. Accordingly meeting of Technical Committee was scheduled on 14.11.2024 to open the technical bid. 15. In its report dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-9), it was observed by the Technical Committee that same firms had applied for third time in the tender and earlier petitioner Firm was not fulfilling certain technical specifications of the tender as referred supra on physical inspection of the product at the premises of bidder, whereas in response to the third tender, bidder had submitted compliance to all technical specifications including which were lacking during physical demonstration done earlier before the Technical Committee Members and, therefore, Technical Committee decided that before finalizing the technical evaluation of the tender, it would like to have physical demonstration of all the technical specifications features mentioned in the tender in a hospital setup and features must be demonstrated while product was being operated in that hospital to check technical specifications and their compliance and quality of the product on a suitable date to be determined by the Firms accordingly. 16. It was also noticed by the Technical Committee that though an unknown complaint without any contact number or details of the complainant, on 9.9.2024 had alleged scam in purchase of Robotic Tender Machinery and Equipment and in response Office of Medical Education had responded to the said E-mail on 16.9.2024 to submit suggestion/proposed amendments in the tender, but nothing was submitted till the date of finalization of amendments. The Apex Meditech System on 7.11.2024 submitted an E-mail alongwith specification of Robotic tender of PGMIER Chandigarh for which pre-bid was on 9.10.2024 i.e. after the last date of applying to this tender. The Technical Committee was of the view that Apex Meditech was trying to hamper the process of procurement of Robotic Machinery and Equipment. 17. In furtherance to the decision of the Technical Committee, vide communication dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P-10), petitioner and respondent No. 5 were requested to give suitable date, time and venue for visit and inspection of Technical Committee for the purpose supra. 18. 17. In furtherance to the decision of the Technical Committee, vide communication dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P-10), petitioner and respondent No. 5 were requested to give suitable date, time and venue for visit and inspection of Technical Committee for the purpose supra. 18. In response, vide communication dated 30.11.2024 (Annexure P-11), petitioner confirmed the date of visit for technical evaluation on any date between December, 5th to December 15th at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, Rohini Delhi with further statement that if the minor things were not able to be demonstrated in the Hospital mainly due to type of surgery, petitioner would bring the Technical Committee to the Office to further evaluate the remaining specifications at the Office of petitioner. 19. In response, visit of Technical Committee for inspection of product of petitioner and respondent No. 5 was notified as 9.12.2024 by DMER vide communication dated 4.12.2024 (Annexure P-12). 20. On 9.12.2024, product of petitioner was evaluated in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital Rohini Delhi, whereas product of respondent No. 5 was evaluated in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. Technical Evaluation Committee submitted its report on 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-1), communicating its unanimous opinion as under:- “M/s Sudhir Srivastva Innovations Private Limited does not fulfill point numbers 2.2, 5, 13, 23 and A2 (Staplers) of the tender. In Robotic System shown in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, the SSIPL did not demonstrate the use of staplers and instead they showed only one stapler in their factory in Gurugram, which is still in developmental stage and lacked articulation upto 120o which is mandatory as per tender specifications point 23 & A2. The stapler was demonstrated on animal tissue and its use in humans was not demonstrated. Hence it is not advisable to approve this system in its present state. M/s Intutive Surgical India Private Limited fulfills all the technical specifications of the tender. Hence technically qualifies.” 21. On 31.12.2024 itself, at 6:49 P.M, in response to report of Technical Evaluation Committee, petitioner submitted representation dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-13) to DMER through E-mail, requesting the Technical Committee to re-evaluate and re-call the Technical Evaluation Report with further submission that petitioner was open to conduct further demonstration including on human tissue to satisfy the Technical Committee as per tender specification. 22. Vide letter dated 1.1.2025 (Annexure R-5), representative of respondent No. 5 was invited for price negotiation on 3.1.2025. 23. 22. Vide letter dated 1.1.2025 (Annexure R-5), representative of respondent No. 5 was invited for price negotiation on 3.1.2025. 23. In the meanwhile objections of the petitioner-Company to the Technical Evaluation Report received by DMER on 31.12.2024 were also considered and it was found that though there was specific condition regarding stapler’s demonstrations only but the representation was silent about deficiencies/shortcomings at point Nos. 2.2, 5, 13, 23 and A2 (Staplers) of the tender. The copy of representation was sent to the Member Secretary of Technical Committee vide communication dated 4.1.2025 (Annexure R-6) for comments of the Committee. The Committee submitted its report on 6.1.2025 (Annexure R-7) to DMER with submission that claims of the petitioner-Company in objections were absolutely false and the said report was sent to the Member Secretary of petitioner through post (Annexure R-8), which was returned by the Postal Authorities on 6.1.2026 (Annexure R-8) with remarks that no whereabouts of this address were available. Thereafter the report was also sent to the petitioner through E-mail dated 6.1.2025. After receipt of first mail, petitioner replied that they had not received any letter in the E-mail with request to share it again on the same E-mail ID and after that Office of DMER sent copy of letter dated 28.11.2024 to the petitioner. Thereafter, matter was sent to the Government for approval vide communication dated 20.1.2025 (Annexure R-9). 24. Government vide letter dated 1.2.2025 (Annexure R-10), had approved the process for procurement of approved Machinery and Equipment by completing all codal formalities and compliance, as applicable. Accordingly, Machinery and Equipment were procured and installed in both the Medical Institutions. 25. Petitioner vide communication dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-18 colly) was informed about opening of financial bid for the tender. 26. Government vide letter dated 1.2.2025 (Annexure R-10), had approved the process for procurement of approved Machinery and Equipment by completing all codal formalities and compliance, as applicable. Accordingly, Machinery and Equipment were procured and installed in both the Medical Institutions. 25. Petitioner vide communication dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-18 colly) was informed about opening of financial bid for the tender. 26. In response thereto, petitioner sent another E-mail dated 13.1.2025 (Annexure P-19), wherein it was stated that after knowning from a news article on the internet, petitioner came to know that respondents were going to hold a meeting on 24.1.2025 to start Robotic Surgery and in these circumstances petitioner filed present petition on 23.1.2025 on the ground that examination and rejection of equipment of the petitioner by the Technical Committee was unfair, arbitrary, as the petitioner had met all requirements; there is contradictory stand of the Committee in its opinion dated 31.12.2024 as in the meeting dated 14.11.2024 Committee had observed that petitioner had filed its compliance showing that it was meeting with all technical specifications; the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the respondents have acted in a prejudicial manner by rejecting the bid of the petitioner; tender term for preference for ‘Make in India’ has been ignored, despite the fact that petitioner was meeting that condition; action and conduct of respondents is not upholding the fairness, equality and rule of law, as required to be maintained while dealing with contractual matters. 27. It has been contended that respondent No. 1 was not justified in rejecting the bid of the petitioner despite meeting with all technical specifications of the bid and respondents have acted unfairly and arbitrarily in evaluating and rejecting the bid of the petitioner. 28. To substantiate the plea of the petitioner, reliance has been placed on judgment of High Court of Delhi in Macpower CNC Machines Limited Vs. Union of India, WP © 3942/2020 decided on 24.12.2020 and the judgment of High Court of Patna in Samanta Security and Intelligence Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar 2023 SCC Online Pat 3186. 29. Respondents by referring the aforesaid facts and circumstances have justified the action of respondent-State for procurement and installation of requisite equipment from respondent No. 5. 30. To substantiate the plea, respondents have referred judgments of the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Bihar 2023 SCC Online Pat 3186. 29. Respondents by referring the aforesaid facts and circumstances have justified the action of respondent-State for procurement and installation of requisite equipment from respondent No. 5. 30. To substantiate the plea, respondents have referred judgments of the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & others (2007) 14 SCC 517 ; Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and another Vs. BVG India Limited and others (2018) 5 SCC 462 ; Uflex Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & others (2022) 1 SCC 165 , N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & others (2022) 6 SCC 127 and Omsairam Steel & Alloys Private Limited Vs. State of Odisha (2024) 9 SCC 697 . 31. Following principles have been culled out by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , which are relevant to be referred in present matter:- “94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by the process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness and not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose a heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditures.” 32. Following observations of the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal Vs. (6) Quashing decisions may impose a heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditures.” 32. Following observations of the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 are also relevant to be referred:- “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether a choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether a choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or the award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to the award of the contract is bona fide and is in the public interest, courts will not, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self and persuade courts to interfere by exercising the power of judicial review should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court, before interfering in tender or contractual matters in the exercise of the power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 33. The aforesaid principles have been re-iterated by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation Ujjain Vs. BVG Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462 , which read as under:- “27. Thus, only when a decision-making process is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority proceeding reasonably or lawfully could have arrived at such decisions, the power of judicial review can be exercised. However, if it is bona fide and in the public interest, the court will not interfere in the exercise of the power of judicial review even if there is a procedural lacuna. The principles of equity and natural justice do not operate in the field of commercial transactions. Wherever a decision has been taken appropriately in the public interest, the court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint. When a decision is taken by the authority concerned upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all tenderers on their own merits and it is ultimately found that the successful bidder had in fact substantially complied with the purpose and object for which the essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with.” 34. In Omsairam Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha, (2024) 9 SCC 697 , it has been held by the Apex Court as under:- “21. It is well settled that, normally, the courts would be loath to interfere in commercial matters, especially when such interference has the effect of delaying the execution of mega projects of national importance. 22. This Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India [Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489 ] held: (SCC p. 501, para 19) “19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty- bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions [Ed. This Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India [Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489 ] held: (SCC p. 501, para 19) “19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty- bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions [Ed. : The reference appears to be to Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ; Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492 ; Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 ; Ksidc Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456 ; Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138 ; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548 ; Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 ; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 ; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 ; Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15 SCC 272 ; Municipal Corpn., Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 291; Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2019) 14 SCC 81 ] has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear- cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides bias or irrationality is made out…. The Courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues, the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments [Ed. The Courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues, the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments [Ed. : The reference appears to be to Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ; Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492 ; Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 ; Ksidc Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456 ; Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138 ; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548 ; Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 ; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 ; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 ; Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15 SCC 272 ; Municipal Corpn., Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 291; Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2019) 14 SCC 81 ] cited above, the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the Government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.” (emphasis supplied) 23. Thus, it is evident that while undertaking the exercise of judicial review of matters relating to tenders, the court has to strike a fair balance between the interests of the Government, which is always expected to advance the financial interests of the State and private entities. As observed by this Court, not every small mistake must be perceived through the lens of a magnifying glass and blown up unreasonably….” 35. In present case, as alleged by the respondents, petitioner has not come with clean hands, as there is no whisper in the entire petition about the earlier two tenders floated by the respondents-State for procuring and installation of Equipment in reference. In present case, as alleged by the respondents, petitioner has not come with clean hands, as there is no whisper in the entire petition about the earlier two tenders floated by the respondents-State for procuring and installation of Equipment in reference. Petitioner had also participated in the said tenders and during that process, while processing the second tender, Technical Committee had found deficiencies and shortcomings in the product of the petitioner. The same shortcomings have been found by the Technical Evaluation Committee during the demonstration of Equipment conducted before the Committee in the process of tender third time. 36. It is also noticeable that in E-tender dated 17.8.2024 Technical Committee was empowered to ask for clarification/document/demonstration while recommending the equipment (see clause 25.3). In the same clause, it has been provided that after evaluation by the Technical Committee, in second stage, the Price Tenders of only the Technically recommended/acceptable offers (as decided in the first stage) shall be opened for further evaluation on a date to be notified after the evaluation of the Technical Bids. 37. In present case, petitioner did not qualify the Technical Bids and, therefore, in the second stage, it was not required to be informed or associated at the time of finalizing the Price Tenders. 38. It is also noticeable that on one hand petitioner is claiming fulfilling of all specifications notified in the E-Tender, but on the other hand vide representation dated 29.8.2024 petitioner-Company had submitted representation with respect to technical specifications, stating therein that the feature specifications in clauses 11, 23 and 24 regarding the vessel sealing and fully wristed robotic vessel sealer the staplers and its associated accessories defined in the A1 Section is available only with one Company globally and it restricted the petitioner Company to participate in the tender. It has been further submitted by the petitioner- Company that design of these two additional features had been completed and the Company was in a process of obtaining the regulatory approvals, as the approvals would take up to a year and, therefore, it was requested to keep the Fully wristed staplers and vessel sealer as an upgradable in the future at the free of cost, as it would allow the petitioner-Company to participate alongwith more bidders. 39. 39. Petitioner-Company has also not participated in the Tender with clean hands as evident from communication dated 30.9.2024 (Annexure P-6), placed on record by the petitioner-Company, wherein against Clause 23, it had been claimed by the petitioner-Company that system should provide capability to conduct advance surgical steps like stapling with the help of fully wristed robotic staplers with 120 degree cone of articulation, controlled directly from surgeon’s console, and against requirement of A2 related to staplers and accessories, the petitioner-Company had claimed availability of all these requirements, whereas from the representation dated 29.8.2024 itself, it is clear that such additional features were not available with the petitioner-Company at the time of submitting the bids. It had been claimed by the petitioner- Company that robotic system should have US FDA/EUCE/CDSCO/BIS/ISO CS approval. 40 It is well settled that by exercising jurisdiction of judicial review in contractual matters, the Court can interfere only if the action of the respondents-State is arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable or biased. 41. In present case, petitioner has failed to establish arbitrariness, malafide, unreasonableness or biasness on the part of respondents authority in accepting the bids of respondent No. 5 for procuring and installing the equipment in two Medical Institutions. The petitioner had ample opportunity to demonstrate the features of its products with the requirements of E-tender. Though, principle of natural justice in the evaluation of the tender cannot be followed at every stage, however, in present case sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 to demonstrate availability of all features specified in E-tender. 42. From the material on record, it is apparent that decision of the respondents-State is neither arbitrary nor whimsical, but it is petitioner who was not fulfilling the requisite features in its product. 43. At this stage, it is also apt to record that it is for the Government or its expertise to decide about the facilities and quality of equipment to be installed in the Medical Institutions to render medical treatment to the patients, i.e. public at large and Technical Committee has submitted its report in consonance with the decision of the Competent Authority prescribing the features in the equipment to be installed in the Medical Institutions. There is no reason or material on record to enter into the question of necessity and requirement of features to be required in the equipment to be installed in the Medical Institutions. 44. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.