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

CWP-34589-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(109+219) CWP-34589-2024 (O&M)
M/s R.S.Technologies ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
Judgment Judgment Judgment Whether only
Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on 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.1.
Mr. Ankit Chowdhri, Advocate, for the respondents No.2 to 4.
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1) Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia , for a writ
of certiorari, for quashing Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 13.11.2024, Annexure
P-4, whereby tender for ‘Selection of Service Provider for Nucleic Acid
Amplification (NAT) Test Machine on Reagent Rental Basis’ at Guru Gobind
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) - 2-
Singh Medical College & Hospital (GGSMC&H), Faridkot, has been awarded
in favour of private respondent No.4. A consequential direction has been
sought for award of the tender to petitioner being the subsequent bidder.
2) Facts are not in dispute. Punjab Health Systems Corporation (for
short “Corporation”)-respondents No.2 to 4 invited online bids for installation
and operation of a NAT machine at Faridkot vide e-tender, Annexure P-1.
Petitioner and private respondent qualified at the technical stage. Upon
opening of financial bids, private respondent emerged as the lowest bidder and
was issued the impugned LOI, Annexure P-4.
3) Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award of tender in
favour of the private respondent essentially on two grounds. Firstly, it has been
contended that the financial bid of the successful bidder was invalid as the
GST component was mentioned as nil. Placing reliance upon a judgment of a
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Roche Diagnostics India Private
Limited Versus Delhi State Health Mission and another, Law Finder Doc Id
# 2813619 , he has contended that private respondent was required to mention
the GST component in its bid and having failed to do so, bid could not be
accepted. Secondly, it has been urged that the private respondent did not
satisfy the requirements of Rule 144 (xi) of the General Financial Rules, 2017
(for short “GFR, 2017”) concerning restrictions regarding procurement
involving bidders from countries sharing a land border with India.
4) Writ petition has been contested by the official as well as private
respondents by filing separate responses. Counsel for respondents has argued
that tender was evaluated in accordance with the stipulated terms and for
comparison of the lowest bid, the financial bid was required to be considered
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) - 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
jurisdiction 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.