Courts Won’t Re-Evaluate Technical Tender Decisions Like Appellate Authorities: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds MRI Tender Award to Lowest Bidder
Case Name: Siemens Healthcare Private Limited v. Punjab Health Systems Corporation and Another
Date of Judgment: 12 May 2026
Citation: CWP-7983-2026
Bench: Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that judicial review in tender matters is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and not the merits of technical evaluations undertaken by expert tendering authorities. The Court ruled that once bidders participate in a pre-bid process, accept corrigenda and clarifications issued before opening of bids, and thereafter submit bids without objection, they cannot subsequently challenge those modified specifications merely because another bidder has been declared technically responsive. Finding no arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity, or violation of tender conditions, the Court upheld the award of the MRI tender to the successful bidder.
Summary: The dispute arose from an e-tender issued by the Punjab Health Systems Corporation for supply and installation of a 3.0 Tesla MRI Machine at the Punjab Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, Mohali. The petitioner, Siemens Healthcare Private Limited, challenged the Technical Evaluation Report dated 25.02.2026 and the consequent award of contract in favour of respondent No.2.
The tender documents prescribed detailed technical specifications relating to the MRI machine, including coil systems, AI-based image reconstruction applications, imaging techniques, liver imaging protocols, and accessories. During the pre-bid meeting held on 02.12.2025, several queries were raised by prospective bidders and clarifications/corrigenda were issued modifying certain technical requirements before opening of bids.
A major controversy revolved around the peripheral angiography coil requirements and inclusion of Artificial Intelligence/Deep Learning based applications such as Deep Resolve Boost, SWIFT Brain, AIR Recon DL, and SMARTSPEED. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.2’s proposed MRI machine did not comply with mandatory tender conditions relating to coil configuration, imaging modes, and accessories. It was further contended that respondent No.2 introduced certain AI-related applications only after opening of technical bids, thereby violating the tender framework.
The petitioner relied upon Supreme Court judgments including Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/s Anoj Kumar Garwala and Tata Cellular v. Union of India to argue that essential tender conditions cannot be diluted and that judicial review is warranted where technical deviations are illegally condoned.
Opposing the petition, the respondents contended that the MRI machine proposed by respondent No.2 fully complied with all technical specifications after incorporation of corrigenda and clarifications issued during the pre-bid process. It was also highlighted that respondent No.2’s financial bid was substantially lower than that of the petitioner and therefore there was no basis to allege mala fide favouritism.
Justice Lapita Banerji, speaking for the Division Bench, emphasized that courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 do not sit as appellate authorities over technical decisions taken by expert bodies in commercial tender matters. The Court observed that the petitioner itself had participated in the pre-bid meeting, accepted the corrigenda and clarifications regarding MRI specifications, and thereafter participated in the tender process without protest. Consequently, it could not later contend that those clarifications were impermissible or contrary to the original NIT.
The High Court relied extensively upon Supreme Court precedents including Raunaq International Limited v. I.V.R Construction Limited, Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa reiterating that judicial review in contractual matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, and bias. The Court stressed that courts must resist attempts by unsuccessful bidders to convert minor technical or procedural objections into grounds for derailing public projects.
Distinguishing the authorities cited by the petitioner, the Court held that unlike cases where essential tender conditions were altered after submission of bids, the modifications and clarifications in the present case had been incorporated through corrigenda before opening of bids and were accepted by all participating bidders, including the petitioner.
The Court ultimately found that the tendering authority had objectively evaluated the technical specifications and formed a bona fide opinion that respondent No.2’s MRI machine satisfied the required conditions. Since no perversity, procedural impropriety, mala fide intent, or public interest concern was demonstrated, no interference under Article 226 was warranted.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the Technical Evaluation Report dated 25.02.2026 and the consequential award of the MRI tender in favour of respondent No.2.