1 CGHC010212182021 2026:CGHC:34463-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3485 of 2021 Trivitron Healthcare Private Limited Through Its Legal Head Anshul Joy S/o Dr. Brij Mohan Singh, Aged About 41 Years Office At 15, Iv Street, Abhirampuram Chennai-600018 Tamil Nadu ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Medical Service Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, 3rd Floor, Govind Sarang Vyavsayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Civil Surgeon Hospital District Hospital Mch Wing, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh 4 - Civil Surgeon Hospital Block Medical Officer, Chc, Mhc Wing Gorela, Pendra Road, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh 5 - Civil Surgeon District Hospital Mhc Wing Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - Civil Surgeon Cmc, District Hospital Mhc Wing Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Civil Surgeon Cmc, Mch Wing, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.07 16:12:52 +0530 2 8 - Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital (Cims) Through Dr. Ramesh Chandra Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 9 - Cmho (Mukhya Chikitsa And Swastha Adhikari) District Hospital, Old Bus Stand District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 9 to issue Annexure-XIII certificates in respect of the supplies allegedly made by the petitioner pursuant to Tender Reference No.23/E(P)/CGMSC/EQP/2014 dated 22.09.2014 and, consequently, to direct respondent No.1–CGMSC to release the outstanding payment of Rs.35,93,460/- with interest. The claim is disputed by the respondents on the ground that the requisite supplies and installations were not made at all the concerned hospitals, except District Durg. 3 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable order(s)/ direction(s) / writ(s) to direct respondents No. 2 to 9 to grant the Certification i.e. ANNEXURE XIII pursuant to Tender Reference No. 23/E(P)/CGMSC/EQP/2014 dated 22.09.2014 within a period of 30 days; 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable order(s)/ direction(s) / writ(s) to direct the respondent no.1 to release the amount of INR 35,93,460 (Thirty Five Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Only) in compliance of order dated 07.10.2020 in WPC No. 1651/2020 (ANNEXURE P-1); 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the outstanding amount along with 12% interest from the date of accrual to the date of payment. 10.4 Any other relief/ reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 4. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying healthcare and laboratory equipment. Pursuant to Tender Reference No.23/E(P)/CGMSC/EQP/2014 dated 22.09.2014 floated by respondent No.1–Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSC), the petitioner claims to have supplied Electrolyte Analysers, Biochemistry Analysers, Cell Counters and 4 Labmate equipments to various Government hospitals in the State during the years 2015-16 and 2016-17. According to the petitioner, although the supplies were duly made and bills were submitted, an amount of Rs.35,93,460/- remained unpaid on the ground that Annexure-XIII (Consignee Receipt/Installation Certificate) had not been furnished. Earlier, in W.P.(C) No.1651 of 2020, this Court, by order dated 07.10.2020, directed the petitioner to make efforts for obtaining the requisite certificates through respondent No.2, whereafter respondent No.1 was to take appropriate steps. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that despite making representations to the authorities, Annexure-XIII certificates were not issued by respondent Nos.2 to 9, resulting in non-release of the outstanding payment. Respondent No.1 has contended that payment can be processed only after receipt and verification of the requisite Annexure-XIII certificates. The State respondents, on the other hand, have asserted that except for District Durg, where the certificate has already been issued, the petitioner neither supplied nor installed the equipments in the hospitals at Balod, Bilaspur and Dhamtari, and therefore, Annexure-XIII certificates could not be issued in respect of those institutions. Thus, the parties are at variance on the question of supply and installation of the equipments and the petitioner's entitlement to the consequential payment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner duly performed its contractual obligations by supplying the laboratory equipments pursuant to the tender and the purchase orders issued by 5 respondent No.1. It is contended that there is no dispute regarding the supplies made or the amount payable, and that the outstanding payment has been withheld solely on the ground of non-issuance of Annexure-XIII certificates by the consignee authorities. It is further submitted that, in the earlier round of litigation, this Court, by order dated 07.10.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.1651 of 2020, directed respondent No.2 to instruct the concerned authorities to issue the requisite certificates, but despite repeated representations, the respondents failed to comply with the said direction. It is further submitted that the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 9 in issuing Annexure-XIII certificates has arbitrarily deprived the petitioner of its legitimate dues and has consequently prevented respondent No.1 from releasing the outstanding amount of Rs.35,93,460/-. Learned counsel contends that the respondents cannot indefinitely withhold payment by failing to perform their own obligation of issuing the requisite certificates and, therefore, appropriate directions deserve to be issued for issuance of Annexure-XIII certificates and release of the outstanding payment along with interest. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1–CGMSC submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed, as under the terms of the tender, release of payment is conditional upon submission of the consignee receipt/installation certificate in the prescribed format, namely Annexure-XIII. It is contended that unless the requisite certificates are received from the concerned user departments and duly verified, respondent No.1 cannot process or release the outstanding payment. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has no independent role in issuance of Annexure-XIII certificates, which are 6 required to be issued by the concerned hospitals after verification of supply and installation of the equipments. Learned counsel submits that upon receipt of the requisite certificates and their due verification, respondent No.1 shall take appropriate steps for release of the admissible payment in accordance with the terms of the tender and the applicable procedure. 8. Learned State counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 9, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any direction for issuance of Annexure-XIII certificates as the petitioner failed to supply and install the equipments in all the designated Government hospitals. It is contended that, upon verification, it was found that the equipments had not been supplied or installed in the hospitals at Balod, Bilaspur and Dhamtari and, therefore, the authorities rightly declined to issue Annexure-XIII certificates in respect of those institutions. It is further submitted that a certificate has already been issued in respect of the supplies made to District Durg. 9. Learned State counsel further submits that the order dated 07.10.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.1651 of 2020 merely required the petitioner to make efforts to obtain the certificates and directed respondent No.2 to instruct the concerned authorities to verify the claim. The said order did not mandate issuance of Annexure-XIII certificates irrespective of verification. It is, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner failed to establish supply and installation of the equipments at the concerned hospitals, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 11. The main grievance of the petitioner relates to non-issuance of Annexure-XIII (Consignee Receipt/Installation) certificates by the concerned authorities and the consequential non-release of the outstanding payment claimed under Tender Reference No.23/E(P)/CGMSC/EQP/2014. The claim of the petitioner arises out of the contractual obligations flowing from the tender and the purchase orders, whereas the respondents dispute the very factum of supply and installation of the equipments at certain Government hospitals. Adjudication of the petition would, therefore, necessarily require determination of disputed questions of fact regarding actual supply, installation, verification by the consignee institutions, entitlement to issuance of Annexure-XIII certificates and the consequent liability, if any, of respondent No.1 to release the claimed payment. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 held as follows : “48. 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 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 8 fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. 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. 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. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489). 52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or 9 contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. This is evident from a three- Judge Bench decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679. 53. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its 10 intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere. 54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.” 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Others v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 216 has held that disputes arising out of contractual obligations involving disputed questions of fact, particularly relating to execution of the contract and monetary claims, are ordinarily not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such disputes are required to be agitated before the competent civil forum. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads as under: 11 “7. It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract.” 14. In Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 728, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not completely excluded in contractual matters, such jurisdiction is discretionary and would ordinarily not be exercised where adjudication of the dispute requires determination of disputed questions of fact. The Court further observed that disputes arising purely out of contractual obligations are generally required to be resolved before the appropriate civil forum. Paragraph 69 of the said judgment reads as under:- “69. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages.” 15. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in Joshi Technologies International Inc. (supra) that in matters arising purely out of contractual obligations, particularly where adjudication involves disputed questions of fact relating to performance of the contract, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and leave the parties to avail the appropriate civil remedy. 12 16. In the present case, this Court finds that the claim raised by the petitioner for issuance of Annexure-XIII certificates and consequential release of the outstanding payment cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of the pleadings and documents placed on record. The respondents have specifically disputed the petitioner's claim regarding supply and installation of the equipments at the concerned Government hospitals, whereas the petitioner asserts that the supplies were duly made in terms of the tender conditions. Determination of the petitioner's entitlement would necessarily require verification of the records relating to supply, installation, consignee receipt, inspection and issuance of Annexure-XIII certificates, which involve disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under law before the competent forum/authority. 18. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved