M/S R S Technologies vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Judgment Reserved on Judgment Pronounced on Judgment Uploaded on Whether only the operative part of the judgment

is pronounced Whether the full judgment

is pronounced 12.08.2026 31.08.2026 02.09.2026 No Yes CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present:- Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Garg, Advocate and Mr. Satyam Aneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.

CWP-34589-2024 (O&M) -2- Singh Medical College & Hospital (GGSMC&H), Faridkot, has been awarded in favour of private respondent No.

CWP-34589-2024 (O&M) -3- inclusive of taxes. It has been further argued that Rule 144 (xi), ibid, is not applicable to the tenders floated by the State Government or its instrumentalities. Counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon judicial precedents to support their arguments. 5)

We have heard counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced as also examined the documents referred to by them. 6) In BTL EPC Ltd

V ersus

Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd. and others,

2023 SCC Online SC 1223, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in contracts involving complex technical issues, Courts must exercise restraint. Tender inviting authority having authored the tender is ordinarily best placed to understand and interpret its requirements. Courts ought to defer to the discretion of the tender inviting authority and not sit as Courts of appeal over the decision of the tender making authority. Courts can review the decision making process and examine the arbitrariness or mala fides, if any, but should be reluctant to interfere in commercial or contractual matters, even if State or its agencies are one of the contracting parties. In M/s Utkarsh Enterprises and others Versus Union of India and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2890663, a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi observed that formulation of tender conditions, eligibility criteria and operation requirements are primarily matters for the procuring agencies. Judicial intervention in tender matters is limited to examining arbitrariness, irrationality or illegality. Delay and advanced stage of procurement process weighs against such interference. 7) It is against the backdrop of the settled legal principles laid down in the decisions, two of which have been noticed above, that petitioner's KAMAL SHARMA 2026.09.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-34589-2024 (O&M) -4- challenge has to be examined. It is not in dispute that NAT Machine on reagent rental basis is a highly specialized equipment. As per the stand taken by the official respondents in their response, only two manufacturers were relevant in the tender, namely Roche, represented by petitioner and Grifols, who is represented by the private respondent. The country of origin of both the equipment manufacturers is Switzerland. 8) The first contention of petitioner is that mentioning GST as “nil” renders the financial bid submitted by the private respondent as non- responsive and it ought to have been rejected. This contention cannot be accepted. Tender contemplated a composite  service arrangement. The successful bidder was required to install the NAT machine, arrange the reagents and consumables, operate the facility through manpower as well as bear maintenance and other recurring expenses. Private respondent quoted Rs.1,000/- per reportable test while mentioning GST as nil. It is the case of respondents that this amount is inclusive of all taxes and even if GST is ultimately found leviable, tax liability would be discharged out of the quoted amount.  According to the stand taken by the private respondent that it would not result in any additional financial burden upon the Corporation. In comparison to the private respondent, petitioner had given a bid, excluding tax, of Rs.1,149.11 and by including the GST, he had quoted Rs.1,287/- per test. A bare comparison of the two bids shows that the bid offered by the private respondent was lower. Clause 18 of tender document, Annexure P-1, makes a mention about taxes and duties. It clearly stipulates that it shall be the responsibility of the service provider to deposit all taxes, duties, fees, levies etc. and GST will be paid in addition as applicable. KAMAL SHARMA 2026.09.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-34589-2024 (O&M) -5- 9) Reliance placed by petitioner upon Roche Diagnostics’s case (supra) will not help the petitioner. Annexure-9, which was required to be filled in by the bidders in Roche Diagnostics’s case (supra) required separate entries for the rate without GST, percentage of GST, final Cost Per Reportable Test (CPRT), inclusive of GST, and the grand total inclusive of GST. As the successful bidder had failed to specify whether its quote was inclusive of GST in the manner contemplated by the Annexure-9, Delhi High Court set aside the award of work to him. In the present case, pre-bid meetings were held and Corporation expressly recorded that the lump sum final rate, inclusive of all taxes, was to constitute the basis for the lowest L1 comparison. It was, therefore, for the successful bidder to meet the GST component, either out of the quoted price or from his own pocket. In Roche Diagnostics’s case (supra), despite noticing the deficiencies concerning the fairness in the tender process, Delhi High Court declined to interdict the contract having regard to the belated stage and disruption likely to be caused to the public health services in the case of setting aside of the contract. This judgment, therefore, does not advance the case of petitioner. 10) The second challenge by petitioner is based upon Rule 144 (xi) of the GFR, 2017. This rule imposes restrictions upon procurement from bidders or from agencies having specified commercial arrangements with entities connected with a country which share land border with India.  Corporation in its response has taken a specific stand that none of the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) for the NAT machine or its reagents are from India. Both the bidders, that is, petitioner and the private respondent, have offered to supply the machine, which is manufactured in Switzerland by KAMAL SHARMA 2026.09.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-34589-2024 (O&M) -6- different companies, which do not have any connection with any country, which is not contiguous with India. Rule 144 (xi) of the GFR, 2017 is, therefore, not applicable in the present case.  Moreover, GFR by its own application applies to the Central Government or its departments and subordinate bodies. It does not extend to the State of Punjab or any of the statutory body or authority under the State Government. The second argument raised by petitioner, therefore, also cannot be accepted. 11) There is another aspect of the matter, which cannot be ignored. Petitioner participated in the tender process as well as in the pre-bid meeting, but did not raise any query concerning both the arguments raised before this Court. Petitioner had every opportunity to raise objections after the acceptance of the financial bid, but chose not to do so. Upon opening of the financial bids on 25.09.2024, it transpired that the private respondent was the lowest bidder. It was, thereafter, that petitioner chose to contest the bidding process. In M/s Utkarsh Enterprises’s case (supra), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has settled that a challenge to tender conditions is expected to be laid with due expedition. It was observed that where a party being aware of the terms of a tender, stands by and approaches the Court only after the process has substantially advanced, it would not be right to intervene in an ongoing procurement, particularly where third party rights may have intervened or where public interest in timely completion of procurement, would be seriously affected. Challenge to the tender conditions, if genuine, as per the Court, is expected to be brought promptly and delayed challenge after the process has materially progressed may itself justify refusal of relief on the ground of delay and laches alone. KAMAL SHARMA 2026.09.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-34589-2024 (O&M) -7- 12) Procurement in the present case concerns a NAT facility in a government medical institute. This Court has been apprised that the machine has already been delivered and is lying unused in the premises of the hospital for the last two years. Judicial review cannot remain oblivious to the consequences of setting aside a process for procurement of equipment for public health. Disruption of a contract merely because another interpretation of tender condition is possible would itself be contrary to public interest. Petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that decision to award the tender suffers from mala fides, arbitrariness, illegality or irrationality. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere in the award of LOI in favour of the private respondent. 13) There does not exist any ground for exercise of extraordinary writ juri iction of this Court. Finding no merit, writ petition is dismissed, though with no order as to costs. 14) All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE

(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) 31.08.2026 JUDGE Kamal Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes KAMAL SHARMA 2026.09.02 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.