Mediglance Systems vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
1 WP-34802-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 34802 of 2026
MEDIGLANCE SYSTEMS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastav - Senior Advocate with Shri Sarabvir Singh
Oberoi and Ms. Aditi Shrivastava - Advocates for the petitioner.
Dr. S. S. Chouhan - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Rohit Jain- Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4.
ORDER
Per: Vivek Rusia, Acting Chief Justice
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by
respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted/debarred for a
period of two years and consequential action has been taken in relation to the
tender/contract in question. The petitioner has also sought stay of the
operation of the impugned order during pendency of the writ petition.
Facts of the case, in short, are as under :-
2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm, having its registered office
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
2 WP-34802-2026
at G04, Tower G, Shalimar Gallant, Mahnagar, Vigyanpuri, Lucknow (U.P.)
and is engaged in the business of providing services related to supplying of
various equipment including medical equipment and is regularly
participating in tenders floated by Government for procurement purposes.
3. The Respondent No.2- Madhya Pradesh Public Health Service
Corporation Ltd (in short "Corporation"), issued a Notice Inviting Tender
(NIT) No.T-551 dated 22.02.2024 for Quantity Contract of Physiology
Department Equipment (Set 1) to be supplied and installed at various
hospitals of Government of Madhya Pradesh. The aforesaid tender included
supply of (i) Gas Analysis Apparatus, Halden's Student Type (Item No. 2.
Quantity: 5 nos.) and (ii) Gas Analyzer Automatic Jor CO , O , N (Item No.
2 2 2
12, Quantity: 5 nos.
4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner-firm being technically
eligible participated in the aforesaid tender process and submitted Technical
Compliance Sheet at the bidding stage by which it was expressly disclosed
that for Item No. 2 (Gas Analysis Apparatus Halden's Student Type), model
offered was “PowerLab 26T with Equivital” manufactured by AD
Instruments capable of recording and displaying 12 channels or more
simultaneously. It was also submitted that for Item No. 12, the model offered
w a s "PowerlLab C" , a 32-channel data acquisition system capable of
recording 16 or more channels simultaneously. The Petitioner declared "No
Deviation" against each specification point.
5. The petitioner-firm was found to be successful bidder and the
aforesaid tender was awarded to it and subsequently, agreement dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
3 WP-34802-2026
22.05.2024 was executed between the parties. In pursuance of the said
agreement, the petitioner-firm started supplying the requisite equipment and
installed the same at Government Medical College, Mandsaur, Government
Medical College, Neemuch & Government Medical College, Seoni on
October, 2024, March, 2025 and November, 2024, respectively. The
installation reports of equipment of all the three colleges signed by the Head
of Department and Authorized Signatory of each institution confirmed that
the machines were installed and demonstrated in good working condition.
6 . The Respondent No.4- Chief General Manager, Finance and
Administration, Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 05.08.2025 to
the petitioner on the ground of non-supply of Gas Analysis Apparatus,
Halden's Student Type and Gas Analyzer Automatic for CO , O , N in
2 2 2
conformity with the specifications prescribed in the tender. The show cause
notice stated that under the aforementioned tender, an agreement was
executed with the petitioner-firm for the supply of the aforesaid equipment.
It was also stated that a complaint was received that the machines installed
by the petitioner in the said three government colleges was not in conformity
with the specification prescribed in the tender and on that basis inspection
team was constituted and inspection of the equipment was carried out.
During the inspection, it was found that the petitioner was not in conformity
with the prescribed specifications and on that basis, it was called upon to
submit reply as to why the action of blacklisting/debarment should not be
taken against the petitioner in accordance with the tender conditions and why
action should not be taken for forfeiture/encashment of the Performance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
4 WP-34802-2026
Bank Guarantee deposited by the Petitioner.
7. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner-firm
submitted a detailed reply dated 07.08.2025 denying all the allegations made
in support of its reply inter alia stated that "(i) the supply is fully in
conformity with the technical specifications;
(ii) the equipment is technically complex and requires trained
operators;
(iii) the inspection was conducted without the Petitioner's technical
expert's presence and therefore it is possible it was not done properly;
(iv) the Petitioner offered a re-demonstration through M/s AD
Instruments’ specialists; and
(v) visited the colleges and resolved all faculty queries, as evidenced
by the Service Report of AD Instruments dated 13.08.2025.
8 . On 25.02.2026, the Respondent-Corporation issued a letter in
which the petitioner-firm was directed to replace all its supplied equipment
within 30 working days, in response to which, the petitioner submitted a
detailed reply dated 12.03.2026 asserting full compliance by enclosing
installation and visit reports and requested the respondent-Authorities to
nominate its BME for a joint point-by-point inspection. The petitioner
contends that on its request, the Respondent-Corporation vide its letter dated
24.04.2026, deputed two of its BME officers to conduct a joint point-by-
point inspection at the above mentioned three medical colleges on
27.04.2026 and 28.04.2026 in the presence of petitioner's representatives and
faculty.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
5 WP-34802-2026
9. Again, on 13.05.2026, a second show cause notice was issued by
the Respondent No.4-Corporation in which it was stated that upon request of
the petitioner-firm, a point-wise re-inspection/testing of the equipment
supplied in the three government colleges was conducted in presence of the
petitioner's representatives and faculty of the respective Medical colleges and
the report of the inspection demonstrated that the equipment supplied by the
petitioner-firm were not supplied in accordance with the prescribed
specifications of the tender and on that basis, the petitioner was called upon
to explain as to why action of blacklisting/debarment and forfeiture of
performance security should not be taken against the petitioner. In its
detailed reply dated 18.05.2026 to the said show cause notice, the petitioner
reiterated that the PowerLab C (32-channel system) was the exact model
quoted in the Technical Compliance Sheet and demonstrated at the demo
stage, that Mardsaur faculty confirmed 16-channel recording, that additional
transducer cables were being procured from Australia and would be supplied
within 30 days and that the equipment was in full working order.
10. It was further submitted that on 08.07.2026, the respondent-
Corporation issued a letter directing replacement of equipment within 20
working days, to which petitioner submitted replies dated 13.07.2026 and
23.07.2026 confirming that additional transducer cables had been imported
and the demonstration at Government Medical College, Mandsaur was
completed on 21.07.2026. However, the faculty of Government Medical
College, Neemuch requested supply after 01.08.2026 due to ongoing
practical examinations; and faculty at Government Medical College, Seoni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
6 WP-34802-2026
requested BME presence during supply and demonstration.
11. The grievance of the petitioner-firm is that without waiting for
the completion of the process underway at Government Medical College,
Neemuch and Seoni which was delayed due to the medical colleges' own
scheduling constraints and despite detailed replies being filed by the
petitioner, the Respondent No.3- Managing Director, Corporation passed the
impugned order dated 12.08.2026 vide which the petitioner was
debarred/blacklisted for a period of two years from the date of the order with
a further direction of forfeiture of the Performance Bank Guarantee
submitted by the petitioner and cancellation of the contract. Hence, this
petition is filed before this Court.
Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order is arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14
and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the competent
authority has failed to consider the specific and substantive explanation
furnished by the petitioner in response to the aforementioned show-cause
notices.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had disclosed the model offered by it in the Technical Compliance
Sheet and declared “No Deviation” against the prescribed specifications.
Thereafter, the equipment was supplied and installed at the concerned
Government Medical Colleges. it was also submitted that the initial
demonstration was conducted without the presence of the petitioner's
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
7 WP-34802-2026
technical expert and that, immediately thereafter, the petitioner offered a
fresh demonstration through specialists of AD Instruments and also requested
a joint point-wise inspection, which was accepted by the respondents-
Authorities. Also, the joint inspection conducted on 27.04.2026 and
28.04.2026 did not establish any fundamental defect or incapacity in the
equipment. According to the petitioner, the inspection merely identified a
limited issue relating to simultaneous display/acquisition and the requirement
of additional transducer cables.
14. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner acted
bona fidely and made every effort to rectify the issue. Additional transducer
cables were procured/imported from Australia, and demonstrations were
arranged. The successful demonstration at Government Medical College,
Mandsaur was relied upon to demonstrate that there was no wilful or
deliberate non-compliance on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted
that the delay in conducting demonstrations at Government Medical Colleges
at Neemuch and Seoni was attributable to circumstances beyond the
petitioner's control, including practical examinations and the requirement of
BME presence. These circumstances, according to the petitioner, were not
properly considered by the competent authority.
15. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner was
not supplied with that particular complaint, based on which the proceedings
were initiated against it. Consequently, the petitioner was not allowed to
meet the allegations. It was also argued that mere issuance of a show-cause
notice cannot satisfy the principles of natural justice if the defence furnished
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
8 WP-34802-2026
by the affected party is not effectively considered.
16. In addition to the above submissions, it is further argued by
Learned Senior Counsel that blacklisting for a period of two years entails
serious civil consequences and affects the reputation and future business
prospects of the petitioner. Therefore, the competent authority was required
to consider whether the alleged deficiency was wilful, fundamental and
incapable of rectification before imposing such an extreme consequence.
Learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment passed in the case of
"Techno Print Vs. Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation reported in 2025
SCC Online 343", in which it has been held that there have to be strong,
independent and overwhelming materials to resort to this power given the
drastic consequences that an order of blacklisting entails on a contractor. The
power to blacklist cannot be resorted to when the grounds for the same are
only breach or violation of a term or condition of a particular contract and
when legal redress is available to both parties. Learned Senior Counsel has
also placed reliance on "Blue Dreamz. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation
(2024)15 SCC 264" and Division Bench judgment of this High Court passed
in the case of "Archon Powerinfra India Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director, Kapil
Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others" passed in Writ
Petition No.39164/2024 decided on 20.12.2024.
17. In light of the above submissions, Learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 be quashed
and set aside and that, during pendency of the writ petition, operation of the
impugned order be stayed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
9 WP-34802-2026
Submissions made on behalf of the respondents.
18. Per contra, Mr Rohit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, opposes the writ petition and supports the impugned order. It is
submitted that the petitioner was required to supply equipment strictly
conforming to the technical specifications prescribed in the tender and that
the petitioner-firm failed to establish compliance with the specifications in
the configuration actually supplied. It is also submitted that the explanation
furnished by the petitioner based upon simultaneous acquisition, subsequent
training or possible configuration changes was duly considered by the
competent authority but was not found sufficient to establish compliance
with the contractual technical specifications. Also, the petitioner's subsequent
explanation that the requisite number of channels could be achieved by using
an additional or equivalent device or arrangement cannot substitute the
configuration which was actually tendered and contracted for.
19. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that if the
petitioner intended to offer a configuration dependent upon an additional
device, interface, transducer, accessory or external system for satisfying an
essential specification, such variation or deviation was required to be clearly
disclosed in the Technical Compliance Sheet in terms of Clause 9.2 of the
tender conditions. According to the respondents, the petitioner cannot
retrospectively alter the basis on which its technical responsiveness was
assessed after award of the contract and supply of the equipment. Learned
counsel for the respondents also disputes the petitioner's reliance upon the
subsequent communication issued by AD Instruments. It is submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
10 WP-34802-2026
manufacturer's communication cannot override the factual findings arising
from the actual demonstrations and inspections conducted at the user
institutions.
20. According to the respondents, the manufacturer's communication
itself refers to ambiguity regarding channel capabilities/configurations and
distinguishes the newer PowerLab C from the earlier model. It is also stated
that the issue regarding channel capabilities had been raised by the faculties
at Seoni and Neemuch. The said communication, therefore, could at best
constitute a subsequent explanation which was required to be considered
along with the actual demonstration and inspection material.
21. Learned counsel submits that the competent authority considered
the entire material available on record, including the petitioner's explanation,
notices, demonstrations and inspection/re-inspection proceedings, and
thereafter concluded that compliance with the contractual technical
requirements had not been established.
22. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that the competent authority acted outside the tender
conditions, relied upon irrelevant material, acted without jurisdiction or was
actuated by mala fides or extraneous considerations.
23. Learned counsel submits that, contrary to the petitioner's
contention, the record demonstrates that the respondents followed a process
involving issuance of notices, submission of replies, demonstrations and
inspection/re-inspection. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner was
afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and that its explanation was duly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
11 WP-34802-2026
considered. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not established that
the inspection/re-inspection was conducted without its participation, that the
competent authority ignored its explanation, or that the consequences
imposed were beyond the express terms of the tender.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the action was
taken to protect the integrity of the public procurement process and to ensure
that equipment supplied to Government Medical Colleges conformed to the
specifications for which the procurement had been undertaken. It was
contended that permitting a supplier to avoid contractual consequences by
relying upon subsequent explanations, additional components or alternative
configurations, despite the technical specifications having been prescribed
and accepted, would defeat the purpose of competitive public procurement.
Shri Jain learned counsel has placed reliance on "N.G. Projects Limited Vs.
Vinod Kumar Jain reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127".
25. In addition to the above submissions, learned counsel further
submits that the dispute substantially involves technical and contractual
questions. Although the availability of a contractual remedy may not in every
case bar exercise of writ jurisdiction, according to the respondents, in the
present case no public-law illegality, jurisdictional error, violation of natural
justice or mala fide exercise of power has been established so as to warrant
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this writ
petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.
Appreciation & Conclusions
26. The petitioner is challenging the impugned action mainly on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
12 WP-34802-2026
ground that all the equipment supplied by it was in conformity with the
technical specifications prescribed under the tender and that, since the
concerned authorities had earlier accepted the equipment, the answering
respondents are now estopped from raising any objection about its technical
conformity, if these are the controversies between the the parties than same is
liable to be settled by way of Arbitration. The equipment is liable to
examined by producing it before the Arbitrators for examination with the
evidence of the technical experts.
27. The writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution as it involves disputed questions of fact and complex technical
matters. Determining these issues requires a detailed assessment of technical
specifications, inspection and installation reports, user observations, and rival
explanations. Such evidentiary inquiries fall outside the scope of writ
jurisdiction, particularly where the challenge pertains to contractual powers
exercised under tender terms governing compliance, default, termination, and
debarment.
2 8 . So far, for the supply of the item “Gas Analysis Apparatus,
Halden's Student Type”, the tender specifically prescribed, inter alia, that the
automatic data recorder should be capable of recording and displaying 12
channels or more simultaneously, comprising all the required parameters,
with expansion of the recording capability beyond 30 channels specified in
the tender. But, the petitioner supplied to the Medical College at Seoni only
Gas Analysis Apparatus, Halden's Student Type of 04 channels, and the
explanation which is being offered is that simultaneous 12-channel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
13 WP-34802-2026
acquisition is possible with the help of an additional/equivalent arrangement.
A similar position was found in the inspection with the equipment as
supplied under the contract in the Mandsour as well. The tender also
included the item “Gas Analyzer Automatic for CO , O , N ”, for which
2 2 2
specific technical requirements were prescribed. The petitioner, having
participated with full knowledge of the said specifications, was contractually
bound to supply the equipment strictly in accordance therewith.
2 9 . The petitioner has admitted during the joint inspection that,
although the equipment could record 16 channels, additional transducers
were required for simultaneous acquisition of 16 parameters and offered to
supply such additional transducers. In view of such admission, the
Corporation is right in submitting that a bidder who undertakes to supply
equipment having a specified capability cannot, after supply, seek to
substitute the contracted specification by asserting that the same result can be
achieved through an additional component, accessory, transducer, software
or subsequent modification. For example, if demand was made for supply of
"laptop with camera", and the supplier provides "laptop without camera", and
later on submits that the facility of camera can be availed by attaching an
additional camera in the laptop. Clause 11.6 of the Technical Specifications
and Standards expressly provides that the goods and services to be provided
by the supplier shall conform to the technical specifications and quality-
control parameters contained in the tender.
3 0 . Vide communication dated 25.02.2026, the answering
respondents again informed the petitioner that the equipment supplied to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
14 WP-34802-2026
concerned Medical Colleges was not found to conform with the prescribed
technical specifications and that the explanation earlier furnished by the
petitioner was not satisfactory. On 08.07.2026, the respondent-Corporation
issued a letter directing replacement of equipment within 20 working days, to
which petitioner submitted replies dated 13.07.2026 and 23.07.2026
confirming that additional transducer cables had been imported and the
demonstration at Government Medical College, Mandsaur was completed on
21.07.2026. The petitioner was also called upon to replace them, but the
petitioner gave a baseless excuse/explanation which cannot be accepted,
especially in the medical field where the medical equipment is required in an
emergency. That Clause 11.24 provides termination for Default by the
Tender Inviting Authority/Ordering Authority, without prejudice to other
contractual rights and remedies, to terminate the contract by written notice
where the supplier fails to perform its contractual obligations.
Likewise Clause 10.9 i.e. Debarment and Blacklisting Conditions expressly
authorises the Tender Inviting Authority to debar and/or blacklist a firm for
two years, depending upon the severity of the matter, for specified violations,
including any other violation of tender terms Hence, no interference is called
or with the impugned action taken by the respondents.
3 1 . The petitioner may challenge the impugned action by invoking
the arbitration clause or before the Commercial Court, as the case may be. If
the petitioner is willing to replace or supply the equipment as per tender
specification within 60 days from today, then, in such case, the respondents
shall consider the withdrawal of the order of termination and order of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67803
15 WP-34802-2026
blacklisting .
32. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
Shivani
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/8/2026
3:12:18 PM