CWP No.7983 of 2 IN THE H Siemens Health Ve Punjab Health 1. The date w 2. The date w 3. The date w 4. Whether pronounce pronounce 5. The delay judgment, CORAM : HO HO Present : Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Ms for Mr For Mr Mr Mr For LAPITA BANE Cha Evaluation Repo Health Systems 83 of 2026 THE HIGH C OURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CWP NO. Healthcare Private Limited Versus ealth Systems Corporation and ano date when the judgment is reserved date when the judgment is pronounce date when the judgment is uploaded ether only operative part of the ju nounced or whether the full jud nounced delay, if any of the pronounceme ment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT Mr. Sarjit Bhadu, Senior Advocate Mr. Akshay Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Advocate, Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Sagar Goswami, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Sanya Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankit Choudhari, Advocate, For respondent No.1. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma, Senior Advocat Mr. A. S. Talwar, Advocate, For respondent No.2. ANERJI, J. Challenge in the present writ p n Report dated February 25, 2026 (A ystems Corporation-respondent No.1 p. 1 JAB AND HARYANA AT NO.7983 OF 2026 (O&M) ...Petitioner another ...Respondents 17.03.2026 ounced 12.05.2026 aded 13.05.2026 the judgment is ll judgment is Full ncement of full Not applicable DEEPAK SIBAL APITA BANERJI ocate with ocate, e and ate and dvocate with writ petition is to a Technical (Annexure P-1) by the Punjab No.1 and all the consequential SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 actions taken th question, to the 2. The i) The providing health and therapeutic ii) The 2025 (hereinaft installation of a (hereinafter refe Liver Biliary Sc iii) An specifications responsive. The gradient system, etc. iv) On prospective bidd the Subject Tend v) Cer the Notice Inviti a) ang 80 ove Cla am 83 of 2026 ken thereto by respondent No.1 resulti to the respondent No.2 company. The brief facts of the case are as fol The petitioner is a private limi healthcare technologies and solution peutic procedures. The respondent No.1 issued an e reinafter referred to as the “Subjec n of a 3.0 Tesla Magnetic Resonanc er referred to as the “MRI Machine” ary Sciences, Phase-3B1, SAS Nagar, Annexure-VIII of the bid docume ions of the MRI machine in order f . The said specifications related to ystem, coils, computer system image p On December 02, 2025, a pre-bid m bidders, inter alia, to discuss the ct Tender and clarifications regarding t Certain Clauses were amended su e Inviting Tenders (NIT). The said Cla a) Dedicated coil/coil com angiography of 32 or more channe 80 cm, to be exclusively quoted f overlapping with other clinical ap Clause 5(e) and 5.a of the Bid amended] p. 2 resulting in award of the tender in follows: e limited company involved in olutions in the field of diagnostic an e-tender dated December 01, ubject Tender”) for supply and sonance Imaging (MRI) Machine chine”) at the Punjab Institute of agar, Mohali, Punjab. ocuments contained the technical order for a bid to be technically ted to the magnet, shim system, mage processor, image sequencing bid meeting was held with all the s the mandatory specifications of rding the same. ed subsequent to the issuance of aid Clauses are as follows: combination for peripheral annels with coverage of at least ed for that application and not l applications; [Annexure VIII, Bid Document, as subsequently SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 b) bas Boo equ [Ad c) tech d) mo pha equ Do e) spe Do mo vi) Aft Tender were s stipulated time were opened an to be technical deviations in the which accordin Broadly, the said a) b) c) d) vii) Al compliance of t 83 of 2026 b) Provision of Artificial Inte based image reconstruction applica Boost or Swift Brain or AIR Reco equivalent, duly supported by o [Added by way of subsequent clarif ) Availability of single and techniques; [Annexure VIII, Clause d) Completely free-breathing d motion correction with temporal r phase or better (CS GRASP VIBE/ equivalent); [Annexure VIII, Cl Document] and e) The specification regardi specified originally under Annexur Documents and underwent modification thereafter.” After the pre-bid negotiations, the ere submitted online by the prosp time i.e January 28, 2026. On January and bids of both the petitioner and hnically responsive. The petitioner i s in the technical bid submitted by the cording to the petitioner made the the said non-compliances were as follo a) Non-compliance with Coil Syste Angiography Coverage) b) Introduction of Artificial I Applications at a Post-Bid Stage c) Failure to offer Mandatory Im Applications d) Failure to Disclose Make/Mode All the concerns raised by the ce of the mandatory requirements by p. 3 ntelligence and Deep Learning- plications such as Deep Resolve Recon DL or SMARTSPEED or y original product literature; larification/amendment] and multi-shot EPI imaging ause 10 of the Bid document] ing dynamic liver imaging with ral resolution of 7 seconds per IBE/CS THRIVE/DISCO Star or , Clause 11(kk)(1)of the Bid arding accessories was also exure VIII, Clause 17 of the Bid nt substantial amendment/ he bids relating to the Subject prospective bidders within the anuary 30, 2026 the technical bids er and respondent No.2 were held ioner identified multiple material by the respondent No.2 company, the bid liable to be rejected. s follows: System Requirement (Peripheral l Intelligence/Deep Learning Stage y Imaging Modes and Clinical odel of Critical Accessories y the petitioner regarding non- nts by the respondent No.2 were SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 rejected by the Report dated Fe viii) The alleging that the tender conditio procurement. ix) Ho respondent No.2 were opened an Award (LOA) in favour of resp x) In Section 9 of the to as “the 1996 Court, SAS Nag xi) Aft 2, the Commer existed between was not maintai xii) In t this Court by f Constitution of I 3. Mr the petitioner su by the responde 83 of 2026 y the respondent No.1 and the impu ted February 25, 2026 was made in fav The petitioner filed a representat hat the action of the respondent No.1 w onditions and violative of the pr However, respondent No.1 found t No.2 company to be technically res and since the bid of respondent N OA) dated February 27, 2026 was iss of respondent No.2 company. In the meantime, the petitioner of the Arbitration and Conciliation ac 1996 Act”) before the learned Dist S Nagar, Mohali. After considering the responses fil mmercial Court held that since no tween the parties, the application unde aintainable. In these circumstances, the petition t by filing the present writ petition on of India. Mr. Bhadu, learned Senior Advoc ner submits that despite the MRI ma spondent No.2 company, not comply p. 4 e impugned Technical Evaluation e in favour of the respondent No.2. esentation on February 25, 2026 No.1 was arbitrary, contrary to the he principles governing public found both the petitioner and the lly responsive. The financial bids ent No.2 was lower, the Letter of as issued by the respondent No.1 ioner filed an application under tion act, 1996 (hereinafter referred d District Judge-cum-Commercial ses filed by respondents No.1 and e no valid arbitration agreement n under Section 9 of the 1996 Act etitioner has knocked the doors of etition under Article 226 of the dvocate appearing on behalf of RI machine sought to be installed omplying with the specifications SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 enumerated in respondent No.2 No.1. 4. 4. He of the terms and supply and insta drawn to Anne negotiations he certain changes were in violatio the participating them were reco recommended b 5. It is one significant said inclusion is “A AI Dee SM 6. Lea the bidders in th Coils in the MR “C Cla RF 83 of 2026 ed in the NIT, still arbitrarily and p t No.2 was held to be technically re He has drawn attention of this Cou ms and conditions of the e-tender iss d installation of the MRI machine. At Annexure P-3, recording of the p held on December 01, 2025, to anges in the specifications of MRI iolation of the Clauses in the NIT. Va ipating firms/companies and some of e recommended by the respondent N nded by them were rejected. It is submitted that on a query raise ficant addition was made to the tende sion is reproduced hereinafter: “Artificial Intelligence and Deep L AI Based Image Sequence and De Deep Resolve Boost and SWIF SMARTSPEED should be offered.” Learned Senior counsel further ref rs in the pre-bid meeting with regard to MRI machine. The said queries are Clause No. 5 Clause No. Actual Clause tender RF Coils Dedicated coil/co combination fo peripheral p. 5 and perversely the bid given by ally responsive by the respondent is Court to Clauses 5, 5(e) and 5.a issued by respondent No.1 for Attention of this Court is also the proceedings of the pre-bid to buttress the argument that MRI machine were made which Various queries were raised by me of the changes suggested by dent No.1 whereas other changes y raised by Wipro GE Healthcare, tender terms and conditions. The ep Learning based Applications: d Deep Learning Algorithm like WIFT Brain AIR Recon DL, ed.” her refers to the queries raised by gard to Clause No.5 relating to RF are as follows: in Query Raised il/coil for Dedicated coil/coil combination for peripheral angiography SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 7. It i MRI machine complying with clarification wit Applications be technical bid, the respondent N clearly showed set-aside along 2025. 8. Lea dated October 3 Mandi Parishad the Court exerci the tendering au the NIT or is pa review and set 83 of 2026 angiography of 32 o more channel wi coverage of 80 cm o more. Dedicated coil available with vendo should be quoted. not available, origin product datasheet an an undertaking fro OEM should b submitted It is primarily contended that des chine intended to be supplied by g with the specifications stipulated in with regard to Artificial Intelligenc ons being submitted by the responden still arbitrarily and illegally the ndent No.2. The said illegal action on owed bias in favour of respondent N along with Technical Bid Evaluation Learned senior advocate relied on tober 31, 2025 in “Kimberley Club P ishad and others” to submit that in exercising judicial review does not sit ring authority but in cases where a dec r is patently arbitrary, the court should d set-aside the decision. Page 6 of 19 32 or with cm or coil if endor ed. If iginal t and from be of 32 or more channel with coverage of 80 cm or more. Dedicated coil if available with vendor should be quoted. If not available, a coil combination with at least 80 cm coverage should be offered. This/ These coils will be exclusively for PA and will not be considered for any other application like body/ cardiac imaging.” at despite the coil system of the d by the respondent No.2 not ated in the NIT and the letter of lligence and Deep Based Learning ondent No.2, after opening of the the LOA was issued in favour of on on the part of respondent No.1 ent No.2 and the LOA should be uation Report dated February 25, on the decision of Apex Court lub Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan hat in tender matters, even though not sit in appeal over a decision of decision is dehors the terms of should exercise powers of judicial SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 9. Nex Irrigation Deve January 23, 201 cannot be ignor authority would which was req essential term or appreciation permitted by the 10. Nex Union of India that in a case of of the decision process. 11. Issu 12. Mr respondent No.1 of respondent N 13. Mr submits that the firm as all the m respondent No.2 14. Mr respondent No. respondent No.2 83 of 2026 Next he relied upon the judgment o Development Corporation v. M/s A 3, 2019 to submit that the words us ignored or treated as redundant or would have no power to condone an as required to be strictly complied term of the NIT would amount to per iation of the terms of the tender cond the constitutional Court. Next reliance is placed upon the ndia” reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 ase of judicial review, the Court is no cision on its merits but it only rev Issue notice of motion to the respon Mr. Ankit Choudhari, Advocate a t No.1 and Mr. A. S. Talwar, Advoc dent No.2. Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel ap at there was no infirmity in accepting l the mandatory requirements of the N t No.2. Mr. Bhan, learned Senior couns t No.2 submits that the MRI ma t No.2 not only met all the specificati p. 7 ment of Apex Court in “Vidarbha /s Anoj Kumar Garwala” dated rds used in the tender documents nt or superfluous. The tendering one an essential tender condition plied with. Any violation of an to perversity in the understanding r conditions, which should not be n the case of “Tata Cellular v. 651 by Mr. Bhadu. He submits rt is not concerned with reviewing ly reviews the decision making respondents. cate accepts notice on behalf of dvocate accepts notice on behalf sel appearing for respondent No.1 epting the bid of respondent No.2- f the NIT were complied with by counsel appearing on behalf of RI machine to be installed by cifications stipulated in the NIT by SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 respondent No.1 the petitioner pr 689 of the pape machine in ques respondent No.2 “xxx Ex In c exp and add Fle cm The coi dire and Cov Ma Ma Che Coi Lig Dir its Enh dS dS On eas xxx” Rel material deviati installed by resp 15. Mr v. Taluk Land 83 of 2026 t No.1 but also was priced way lower ner proposed to supply. He specifica e paper-book in respect of coils which in question. The relevant extract of the t No.2 is set-out hereinafter: “xxx Expansion to dS Whole Body 3.0T In combination with the dS Tor expansion provides an integrated c and peripheral vascular related additional FlexCoverage Anteri FlexCoverage Posterior, Head/Ne cm coverage, with a maximum of 10 The flexible lightweight easy-to-posi coil is designed to confirm both directions for almost any patient. T and comfortable strap-free operatio Coverage: 200 cm* Maximum no. of channels: 108 Main applications: Whole body, Chest, Pelvis, Heart Coil type: Integrated Lightweight coil(s) Direct Digital Sampling in the coi its purest, without loss in the RF ch Enhanced SNR dS-SENSE enhanced parallel imagi dS-SENSE capable in AP, LR and F Only 3 FlexConnect coil connectio easy setup. xxx” Relying on the aforesaid Clause, h eviation to the tender conditions, in y respondent No.2. Mr. Bhan relies on the decision in and Board, Peermade and another p. 8 lower than the MRI machine that ecifically placed reliance on page which were to be installed in the t of the technical bid submitted by 3.0T- Torso 3.0T coil solution this ted coil solution for whole body lated imaging. It includes an nterior coil. Combined with Neck and Base it enables 200 of 108 channels. position FlexCoverage Anterior oth in right-left and foot-head ent. This enables large coverage ration. dy, Peripheral-vascular, Torso, coil where the MR signal is at F chain, enabling: maging performance nd FH directions ections and cables for fast and use, he submits that there was no in the machine proposed to be ion in “Hope Plantations Limited ther” reported in (1999) 5 SCC SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 590, to contend should be estop submits that th determination f though such de Section 9 of the allowed to rais application filed by the petitioner 16. Nex Orissa and othe review of an arbitrariness, irr decision to awa should not inte assessment is m to protect privat 17. H Petroleum Corp February 26, 20 writ Courts sho orders which ma tender. 18. Thi perused the mat 83 of 2026 ntend that by applying the principle o stopped from raising the same is hat the rule of res judicata preven tion from raising the same question uch determination may be wrong. O of the 1996 Act has been rejected, t to raise the same issue especially n filed under Section 9 of the 1996 A itioner. Next, he relies on the case of “ others” reported in (2007) 14 SCC f an administrative action is inten ess, irrationality, unreasonableness, bia to award a contract is bona fide and i t interfere even if there is a proced t is made out. The power of judicial re private interest at the cost of public in He also relies on the judgment of Corporation Limited v. The Union 26, 2026 to submit that in matters r rts should remain circumspect and s ich may have the effect of seriously im This Court has heard learned co e material on record. Page 9 of 19 ciple of res judicata the petitioner ame issues again and again. He revents the parties to a judicial estion over and over again even ong. Once the application under cted, the petitioner should not be ially when the order passed in 1996 Act has not been challenged of “Jagdish Mandal v. State of SCC 517 to submit that judicial intended to only prevent the , bias and mala fides. When the and in public interest, the Court procedural aberration or error in icial review should not be invoked blic interest. ent of Apex Court in “Hindustan nion of India and others” dated tters relating to contracts/tenders, and slow in passing the interim usly impeding the execution of the ned counsel for the parties and SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 19. It i administrative d dispute that th conditions regar and added by w The petitioner accepted the sa various tender respondent No.2 20. Aft No.1, pursuant t to challenge the permitted as the technical bid of 21. A Supreme Court Limited” report judicial review or instrumentali The relevant ext “xx 9. or tran con com (1) 83 of 2026 It is trite law that this Court can ative decision taken by the responden hat the petitioner attended pre-bid regarding the specifications of the M by way of corrigendum prior to the o ioner company admittedly participate the said clarifications/additions. Ther enderers were opened and bids o t No.2 company were held to be techn After accepting the clarifications/ad suant to the pre-bid meeting, the petiti ge the said specifications by alleging as they were at variance with terms o bid of respondent No.2 has been found A beneficial reference may be m Court “Raunaq International Limi eported in (1999) 1 SCC 492 to app view should interfere with an executi entalities of the State enter into a co ant extract of the said judgment is repr “xxx 9. The award of a contract, wh or by a public body or the State, transaction. In arriving at considerations which are of p commercial considerations. These w (1) the price at which the other side p. 10 urt cannot sit in appeal over the ondent No.1 authority. It is not in bid meeting whereby certain f the MRI machine were clarified o the opening of the technical bid. icipated in the said meeting and . Thereafter, the technical bids of ids of both the petitioner and technically responsive. ions/additions made by respondent petitioner cannot now be allowed leging that the same could not be erms of the original NIT, once the found to be responsive. be made to a judgment of the Limited v. I.V.R Construction to appreciate when the Courts in xecutive decision where the State to a contract with a private party. is reproduced hereinafter: t, whether it is by a private party ate, is essentially a commercial at a commercial decision, f paramount importance are ese would be: side is willing to do the work; SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 (2) spe (3) goo con req of imp (4) do (5) suc (6) and (7) def Eve tran to Ho the cas in s 10. mo The for bui wou con exp qua ten trem eith tim of fac pro reta pub 83 of 2026 (2) whether the goods or services specifications; (3) whether the person tendering h goods or services as per specific contracts involving engagement o requiring specific skills are to be of the tenderer to fulfil the requ important; (4) the ability of the tenderer to de do the work of the requisite standar (5) past experience of the tend successfully completed similar wor (6) time which will be taken to de and often (7) the ability of the tenderer to ta defects or to give post-contract serv Even when the State or a public bo transaction, considerations which w to award the contract to a given However, because the State or a p the State enters into such a contrac case, an element of public law or p in such a commercial transaction. 10. What are these elements of money would be expended for the p The goods or services which are b for a public purpose, such as, co buildings, power plants or other pu would be directly interested in t contract so that the services beco expeditiously. (4) The public wou quality of the work undertaken tenderer. Poor quality of work tremendous public hardship and either in correcting mistakes or in times in redoing the entire work- of public money and delaying th facilities or goods, e.g. a delay project, as in the present case, cou retardation of industrial developm public and substantial cost escalati p. 11 ices offered are of the requisite ing has the ability to deliver the ecifications. When large works nt of substantial manpower or be offered, the financial ability requirements of the job is also o deliver goods or services or to ndard and quality; tenderer, and whether he has work earlier; o deliver the goods or services; to take follow-up action, rectify t services. ic body enters into a commercial ich would prevail in its decision iven party would be the same. r a public body or an agency of ntract, there could be, in a given or public interest involved even on. s of public interest ? (1) Public the purposes of the contract. (2) re being commissioned could be s, construction of roads, public er public utilities. (3) The public in the timely fulfilment of the become available to the public would also be interested in the ken or goods supplied by the work or goods can lead to nd substantial financial outlay r in rectifying defects or even at -thus involving larger outlays g the availability of services, lay in commissioning a power , could lead to power shortages, opment, hardship to the general alation. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 11. cha the of for cou pub the dec inte bea ma tha pub the the tran inte ten xxx 22. In Limited” report the scope of in several earlier hereinafter: “xx 7. or tran con con at a tha neg ma awa fide It m hig inst nor can 83 of 2026 11. When a writ petition is challenging the award of a contra the State, the court must be satisfie of public interest involved in ente for example, the dispute is purely court must be very careful to see public interest involved in the litig the prices offered by the two ten decisive in deciding whether any p intervening in such a commercial tr bear in mind that by court interve may be considerably delayed thus than any saving which the court public money by deciding dispute i the other tenderer. Therefore, unle there is a substantial amount transaction is entered into mala ntervene under Article 226 in d tenderers. xx” In “Air India Limited v. Coc eported in (2000) 2 SCC 617, the of interference in judicial review th arlier cases. The relevant extract o “xxx 7..... The award of a contract, whe or by a public body or the State, transaction. In arriving at considerations which are par considerations. The State can choo at a decision. It can fix its own term that is not open to judicial sc negotiations before finally deciding made to it. Price need not alway awarding a contract. It is free to gr fide reasons, if the tender conditio It may not accept the offer even t highest or the lowest. But th instrumentalities and agencies ar norms, standards and procedure cannot depart from them arbitrar p. 12 is filed in the High Court ontract by a public authority or tisfied that there is some element entertaining such a petition. If, rely between two tenderers, the see if there is any element of litigation. A mere difference in tenderers may or may not be ny public interest is involved in ial transaction. It is important to tervention, the proposed project hus escalating the cost far more ourt would ultimately effect in ute in favour of one tenderer or unless the Court is satisfied that nt of public interest, or the ala fide, the court should not in disputes between two rival [Emphasis Supplied] Cochin International Airport , the Apex Court has summarised iew that had been enunciated in ract of the same is reproduced whether it is by a private party ate, is essentially a commercial at a commercial decision paramount are commercial choose its own method to arrive terms of invitation to tender and l scrutiny. It can enter into iding to accept one of the offers lways be the sole criterion for to grant any relaxation, for bona ditions permit such a relaxation. en though it happens to be the the State, its corporations, s are bound to adhere to the dures laid down by them and itrarily. Though that decision is SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 not dec ma cor dut fou its and not alw dec it c req 23. In been unambigu imaginary griev mountains out o prejudice to self reproduced here “xx 22. pre ma is dec inv cer a c con equ rela inte inte ass of j priv con grie uns prid 83 of 2026 not amenable to judicial review, decision-making process and inter mala fides, unreasonableness and corporations, instrumentalities an duty to be fair to all concerned. found in the decision-making proc its discretionary power under Art and should exercise it only in furthe not merely on the making out of a l always keep the larger public in decide whether its intervention is c it comes to a conclusion that ov requires interference, the court sho In Jagdish Mandal’s case (supra mbiguously held that attempts by u grievances, wounded pride and s out of molehills of some technical/p to self should be resisted. The relevan d hereinafter: “xxx 22. Judicial review of administ prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides. Its purpose is to check is made “lawfully” and not to decision is “sound”. When the p invoked in matters relating to ten certain special features should be a commercial transaction. Evalua contracts are essentially commerc equity and natural justice stay at relating to award of contract is interest, courts will not, in exercise interfere even if a procedural assessment or prejudice to a tende of judicial review will not be permi private interest at the cost of pu contractual disputes. The tender grievance can always seek damage unsuccessful tenderers with imag pride and business rivalry, to mak p. 13 iew, the court can examine the nterfere if it is found vitiated by and arbitrariness. The State, its s and agencies have the public ned. Even when some defect is process the court must exercise Article 226 with great caution urtherance of public interest and f a legal point. The court should c interest in mind in order to is called for or not. Only when t overwhelming public interest t should intervene." [Emphasis Supplied] pra) cited by Mr. Bhan, it has by unsuccessful tenderers with and business rivalry, to make nical/procedural violation or some relevant extract of the judgment is inistrative action is intended to lity, unreasonableness, bias and heck whether choice or decision t to check whether choice or he power of judicial review is tenders or award of contracts, be borne in mind. A contract is aluating tenders and awarding mercial functions. Principles of y at a distance. If the decision t is bona fide and is in public rcise of power of judicial review, ural aberration or error in enderer, is made out. The power ermitted to be invoked to protect f public interest, or to decide nderer or contractor with a ages in a civil court. Attempt by maginary grievances, wounded make mountains out of molehills SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 of self jud inte reli the in jud (i) aut arb suc acc (ii) If inte imp dist lice foo act xxx 24. The Hope Plantatio party being esto have attained fin cause of actio application und Additional Distr the ground of m distinguishable 25. The in Hindustan 83 of 2026 of some technical/procedural viol self, and persuade courts to interf judicial review should be resisted interim or final, may hold up publ relief and succour to thousands an the project cost manifold. Therefor in tender or contractual matters judicial review, should pose to itsel (i) Whether the process adopte authority is mala fide or intended to OR Whether the process adopt arbitrary and irrational that the co such that no responsible authorit accordance with relevant law could (ii) Whether public interest is aff If the answers are in the nega interference under Article 226. Ca imposition of penal consequences distribution of State largesse (allot licences, dealerships and franch footing as they may require a hi action. xx” There is no dispute with the prop tation’s case (supra) relied upon by stopped by the principles of res jud ned finality. In other words, the parties action/same issue again and agai n under Section 9 of the 1996 A l District Judge-cum-Commercial Co d of maintainability and not on mer hable on the facts of the present case. There is also no dispute with the p tan Petroleum’s case (supra) p. 14 violation or some prejudice to nterfere by exercising power of isted. Such interferences, either public works for years, or delay s and millions and may increase refore, a court before interfering tters in exercise of power of itself the following questions: opted or decision made by the ed to favour someone; dopted or decision made is so e court can say: “the decision is ority acting reasonably and in ould have reached”; is affected. negative, there should be no . Cases involving blacklisting or ces on a tenderer/contractor or allotment of sites/shops, grant of nchises) stand on a different a higher degree of fairness in proposition of law laid down in on by Mr. Bhan, with regard to a s judicata when the proceedings parties cannot litigate on the same again. However, in this case 996 Act was dismissed by the ial Court, SAS Nagar, Mohali, on n merits. Therefore, the same is case. the proposition of law laid down that the Courts should be SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 circumspect in not in dispute t that of the petit that ground. Up clarifications, th to be supplied specifications a 27, 2026 in favo 26. Ap arbitrariness, ill procedural imp February 25, 20 the respondent N 27. The Bhadu arose fr banquet hall/ter Inviting Tender technical bid an 18 of the NIT Patra/Valuation bid. The issue w submitting the V private valuer a Clause 18 of the 83 of 2026 ct in granting interim order to stall t pute that the financial bid of the resp e petitioner’s and therefore, no mala d. Upon evaluation of the technical bi ons, the respondent No.1 formed an op pplied and installed by responden ions and therefore, the Letter of Awa in favour of respondent No.2. Apropos of the aforesaid discus ess, illegality, mala fide intention, perv l impropriety either in the Technica 25, 2026 and grant of LOA dated Feb dent No.2. The dispute in Kimberley Club’s ose from a tender floated by the M all/terrace lawn to the highest bidde ender prescribed a two-stage biddin bid and a financial bid. One of the co NIT stated that the bidder must s ation Certificate” of minimum Rs.1 ssue which fell for consideration was the Valuation Certificate issued by a luer attached to the Income Tax Dep of the NIT. Page 15 of 19 stall the tender proceedings. It is he respondent No.2 was less than mala fide/bias can be alleged on ical bid along with the subsequent an opinion that the MRI machine ondent No.2 met the required f Award was issued on February discussion, this Court finds no n, perversity or abuse of power or hnical Evaluation Report dated ed February 27, 2026 in favour of ub’s case (supra) cited by Mr. the Mandi Parishad to let out a bidder for 10 years. The Notice bidding process comprising of a the conditions contained in Clause ust submit a “Haisiyat Praman Rs.10 crores with the technical n was whether the appellant while d by a professional architect-cum- x Department had complied with SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 28. The 18 nor any othe Patra” submitte by a District M rejection of the Certificate was the terms of the 29. The distinguishable introduced deho opening of the additions was technical/financ to specification without raising the petitioner ac 30. In by the appellan done in a cana stipulated that should be val Furthermore, a from the date o had to “be furn admittedly the l 83 of 2026 The Apex Court was of the conside y other condition of the NIT specified bmitted by a prospective bidder manda trict Magistrate and not by a privat of the appellant’s technical bid on th e was not issued by the District Magis of the NIT and was quashed. The facts of Kimberley Club’s hable from the facts of the presen hors the NIT for accepting the r of the technical bid. The corrigendum was incorporated in the NIT p financial bid. In the pre-bid meeting, t cations of the MRI machine were p ising any objection to the said clarific accepted the bidding process. In Vidarbha Irrigation’s case (sup pellant-corporation for completion o a canal. Under Clause 2.22 qua “pe that the Bank Guarantee (BG)/Fix e valid upto one month after th a valid demand draft for a minim date of submission of the tender alon furnished” by the prospective tende y the lowest bidder (L-1), along with p. 16 onsidered view that neither Clause ecified that the “Haisiyat Praman mandatorily should be issued only private authority. Therefore, the on the ground that the Valuation Magistrate was held to be dehors b’s case (supra) are squarely present case since no term was g the respondent No.2’s bid after gendum containing clarifications/ NIT prior to the opening of ting, the clarifications with regard ere provided to the bidders and clarifications, the parties including (supra) a tender was called for tion of balance earthwork to be a “performance security” it was G)/Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) ter the defect liability period. minimum period of three months along with all other documents e tenderers. The respondent No.2, g with the bid documents initially SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 furnished a BG BG should have 31. Aft evaluated all the The said Comm allowed it to ma 34 months over documents. The was possible fo that was furnis circumstances, terms of the tend 32. In the specification bid negotiation the same and p were opened by Irrigation (supr 33. The of the Apex Cou are reproduced h “xx 94. (1) adm (2) rev 83 of 2026 a BG for only six months when adm d have been furnished was 40 months. After opening of the bids, a Ten all the bidders and respondent No.2 em Committee accepted the offer of r t to make up its deficiency by adding s over and above the initial BG submi s. The issue that the Apex Court soug ible for the appellant to condone the urnished admittedly for an incorrect p nces, the Apex Court held that no d he tender could be permitted by the ten In the present case the facts are co ications of the MRI machine in questio iation, incorporated by way of corrigen and participated in the tendering pro by the tendering authority. There supra) has no manner of application There is no quarrel with the princip ex Court in Tata Cellular’s case (supr uced hereinafter :- “xxx 94. The principles deducible from (1) The modern trend points administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a reviews the manner in which the de p. 17 n admittedly the period for which onths. a Tender Evaluation Committee o.2 emerged as the lowest bidder. r of respondent No.2 (L-1) and dding another BG for a period of submitted by it along with the bid rt sought to answer was whether it e the deficiency in the initial BG rrect period of six months. In such t no deviation from the essential the tendering authority. are completely distinguishable as question were clarified during pre- orrigendum. The bidders accepted ng process and after that the bids Therefore, the case of Vidarbha cation to the present fact scenario. principles set forth in the judgment (supra) which are culled out and from the above are: oints to judicial restraint in as a Court of appeal but merely e decision was made. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 (3) adm dec wit (4) jud of ten neg dec (5) wor an or q onl rea but act (6) bur unb Xxx 34. Thi Tata Cellular 35. In t that there was n clarifying the p respondent No.1 as the parame needs/specificat was either arbi admittedly, the procured at a m proposed to be s 83 of 2026 (3) The Court does not have t administrative decision. If a rev decision is permitted it will be su without the necessary expertise whi (4) The terms of the invitation t judicial scrutiny because the invita of contract. Normally speaking, tender or award the contract negotiations through several tiers. decisions are made qualitatively by (5) The Government must have f words, a fair play in the joints is a an administrative body functioning or quasi-administrative sphere. Ho only be tested by the application reasonableness (including its othe but must be free from arbitrarine actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may im burden on the administration a unbudgeted expenditure. Xxx” This Court fails to understand how (supra) aids the case of the writ p In the light of the aforesaid discussi was neither any arbitrariness nor any the parameters for the MRI machine t No.1 that it had proposed to purchas arameters clarified by respondent cifications, one cannot be allowed to c r arbitrary or biased or based on y, the MRI machine supplied by resp at a much lower cost compared to to be supplied by the writ petitioner. Page 18 of 19 ve the expertise to correct the review of the administrative e substituting its own decision, which itself may be fallible. ion to tender cannot be open to vitation to tender is in the realm ng, the decision to accept the ct is reached by process of tiers. More often than not, such ly by experts. ave freedom of contract. In other s is a necessary concomitant for ning in an administrative sphere . However, the decision must not tion of Wednesbury principle of other facts pointed out above) ariness not affected by bias or y impose heavy administrative n and lead to increased and d how on the facts of the case of writ petitioner in the present case. iscussion, this Court is of the view r any mala fide intention or bias in achine which were suitable to the urchase and get installed. As long ndent No.1-authority suited its ed to contend that such a decision d on mala fide intention when y respondent No.2-company was ed to the MRI machine that was ner. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.7983 of 2 36. Con dismissed. 37. Con accordingly. (DEEPAK SIB JUDGE MAY 12, 2026 Shalini Whether speakin Whether reporta 83 of 2026 Consequently, the writ petition bein Connected application(s), if any, SIBAL) (LA DGE 6 speaking/reasoned: Ye reportable: Ye p. 19 on being CWP No.7983 of 2026 is any, shall also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.13 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document