Article 226 jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed technical compliance issues arising from contractual debarment.

The petitioner, a medical-equipment supplier, participated in NIT No. T-551 dated 22 February 2024 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Health Service Corporation for supply and installation of physiology-department equipment.

It represented that the offered equipment would satisfy the prescribed technical requirements, including simultaneous recording/display of the required number of channels, and declared “No Deviation” in its technical compliance sheet.

After being awarded the contract, the petitioner supplied and installed the equipment at Government Medical Colleges, Mandsaur, Neemuch and Seoni.

Following complaints, inspections allegedly found that the supplied equipment did not conform to the tender specifications. The petitioner denied the allegations, offered re-demonstration and requested joint inspection.

A subsequent point-wise inspection and re-inspection also resulted in the respondents’ conclusion that the equipment did not meet the contractual specifications.

On 12 August 2026, the Managing Director of the Corporation ordered termination/cancellation of the contract, forfeiture of the Performance Bank Guarantee and debarment/blacklisting of the petitioner for two years.

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily unsuitable for adjudicating disputed questions of fact and complex technical or contractual matters requiring examination of evidence, particularly where an arbitration or commercial remedy is available.

Under Clause 11.6 of the tender conditions, supplied goods and services had to conform to the prescribed technical specifications and quality-control parameters.

Clause 11.24 authorised termination for default where the supplier failed to perform its contractual obligations, while Clause 10.9 authorised debarment or blacklisting for two years, depending on the severity of specified violations, including breach of tender terms.

The Court also recognised that the respondents had followed a process involving show-cause notices, replies, demonstrations and inspections, thereby addressing the requirement of procedural fairness.

The Court held that determining whether the equipment actually supplied possessed the contracted capability required examination of the technical specifications, inspection reports, demonstrations, user observations and rival technical explanations.

The record indicated that the equipment supplied at Seoni had only four channels, while the tender required simultaneous recording and display of twelve or more channels; similarly, the petitioner acknowledged that additional transducers were required to achieve simultaneous acquisition of the specified parameters.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s attempt to substitute the contracted configuration with an additional component, accessory or later modification, analogising it to supplying a laptop without a camera and subsequently offering an external camera.

Since the petitioner had been repeatedly informed of the alleged non-conformity, issued notices and given opportunities to respond and participate in inspections, the Court found no apparent procedural violation warranting writ interference.

The disputed technical and contractual questions were therefore left to arbitration or the competent commercial forum.

The petitioner was permitted to challenge the action through arbitration or before the Commercial Court, as applicable.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

However, if the petitioner replaced or supplied equipment strictly conforming to the tender specifications within 60 days, the respondents were directed to consider withdrawing the termination and blacklisting order.