SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by Pune-based M/s Pro Health Scientific Pvt. Ltd. challenging its exclusion from a Jammu and Kashmir Medical Supplies Corporation Ltd (JKMSCL) tender for procurement of an Anatomy Virtual Dissection Table. Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the mandatory turnover qualification prescribed in the tender and could not claim relaxation under a 2016 Government of India circular.
The judgment was reserved on August 4 and pronounced on August 14, 2026, by Justice Rajnesh Oswal at the Jammu wing of the High Court. The court dismissed the petition as being “devoid of merit” and ordered that the connected miscellaneous applications, if any, would also stand dismissed.
Pro Health Scientific, through its authorised signatory Manoj Kumar Dadge, had approached the court through advocate Farhan Mirza. The respondents included the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through the Principal Secretary, Health and Medical Education Department; JKMSCL; its Managing Director and General Manager (Administration); and M/s Maverick Simulation Solutions of New Delhi, which was subsequently arrayed as respondent No. 5. The official respondents were represented by AAG Raman Sharma with advocate Saliqa Sheikh, while senior advocate Rahul Pant, assisted by advocate Dhruv Pant, appeared for Maverick Simulation Solutions.
The dispute arose from NIT No. NIT/JKMSCL/M&E/2025/655 issued on February 28, 2025, for procurement of machinery and equipment, specifically one Anatomy Virtual Dissection Table. Among the technical qualification requirements, bidders were required to furnish the average annual turnover of the Indian subsidiary of the principal manufacturer or sole importer for the three financial years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. The prescribed turnover was Rs 5 crore, supported by certification from a Chartered Accountant or competent authority with a UDIN, along with audited balance sheets and profit-and-loss accounts.
The technical bids were evaluated on August 18, 2025. The evaluation committee pointed out deficiencies in the petitioner’s documents and asked it, among other things, to submit turnover details for 2021-22 and the audited balance sheet for that year. The petitioner was ultimately not recommended, while M/s Maverick Simulation Solutions was recommended on August 21, 2025.
Pro Health Scientific argued that it was a start-up which had commenced operations only in 2022 and therefore could not have furnished turnover for 2021-22. It contended that since the tender submission deadline had been extended to April 26, 2025, the latest financial year, 2024-25, ought to have been considered. The company said it had submitted turnover figures for 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 and claimed these satisfied the prescribed requirement. It further alleged that JKMSCL failed to consider its 2024-25 turnover and did not respond to its representation seeking relaxation of the norms for start-ups and MSMEs.
The petitioner also relied on two earlier tenders in which, according to it, the corporation had relaxed the turnover requirement and considered later financial years. It argued that it should similarly be granted relaxation on the principle of parity.
The official respondents opposed the plea, maintaining that the tender specifically prescribed the three financial years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 and that the petitioner had failed to meet the mandatory requirement. They said the petitioner had instead submitted a turnover certificate for 2024-25, which did not satisfy the tender condition. The authorities also argued that the March 10, 2016 MSME circular was administrative and advisory and did not confer an enforceable right to demand relaxation of tender conditions.
The respondents further said the petitioner was not itself a manufacturer registered under the MSME category and had not produced documentary proof establishing eligibility for benefits available under the MSME policy.
Maverick Simulation Solutions, represented by senior advocate Rahul Pant, broadly adopted the stand of the official respondents. It stated that it was the direct importer of the equipment from Anatomage Inc., USA.
The court found that the tender conditions were unambiguous. Referring to Clauses 12 and 13 of the Technical Bid Submission Sheet, Justice Oswal noted that bidders were expressly required to submit the average annual turnover for 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, together with the corresponding audited financial statements.
The court noted that the petitioner had entered the business only in 2022 and therefore did not possess the requisite qualification. Despite being aware of the tender conditions, it participated in the bidding process. The court held that where a bidder fails to satisfy an essential condition of a tender, its bid is liable to be rejected.
The High Court also rejected the argument that JKMSCL should have considered the petitioner’s 2024-25 turnover. It held that doing so would effectively amount to rewriting the tender conditions, which was beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“The employer is the best judge to determine the responsiveness of the bidder,” the court observed, adding that courts should be reluctant to interfere with such decisions unless they suffer from arbitrariness, bias or mala fides.
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India, which stresses judicial restraint in contractual and commercial matters. The High Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation that courts should not “use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders” and should allow the government and public-sector undertakings “fair play in the joints” in contractual matters.
The court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the March 10, 2016 MSME circular. It held that the circular was addressed to Central Ministries, Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings and other concerned entities and therefore could not be said to apply to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir or its authorities.
More importantly, the court said the circular merely enabled procuring entities to exercise discretion in relaxing prior-turnover and prior-experience requirements for Micro and Small Enterprises; it did not create an enforceable right in favour of a bidder to demand such relaxation.
The court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that it was entitled to similar treatment because of two earlier JKMSCL tenders. It accepted the explanation that references to earlier financial years in those tenders were inadvertent errors which were subsequently corrected. Such correction, the court held, could not be treated as a relaxation of the tender conditions or create a corresponding right in favour of the petitioner.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, the High Court reiterated that judicial review in tender matters is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides, rather than to determine whether a commercial decision was the most sound one.
The court accordingly dismissed WP(C) No. 2697/2025 along with the connected miscellaneous applications.
