Writ petition challenging award of an NAT testing facility tender to respondent no.2 on the ground its price bid ignored mandatory GST fields. Court held Clause II required prices inclusive of taxes and the award was not perverse; deprecated incorrect instructions given to court and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
versus
DELHI STATE HEALTH MISSION & ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aakash Bajaj and Ms. Prena Banerjee, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil) with Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate for R-l/GNCTD
Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Mr. Priyojeet Chatterjee, Mr. Snehil Sharma and Ms. Anjali Jain, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
J U D G M E N T
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 1 of 29
(hereinafter referred to as “DSHM” ). The petition further seeks to set aside any action taken consequent to the award of contract/rank from L1-L2. The petition also seeks to set aside the subject tender issued by DSHM.
BRIEF FACTS:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 2 of 29
basis thereof and supporting documents. It is claimed that the petitioner provided a detailed explanation on 27.02.2025 to the DSHM confirming that 18% GST is applicable in accordance with HSNO999316 read with the SAC Code notified under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The relevant notification, scheme of classification of services and the explanatory note thereof is also claimed to have been furnished.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 3 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 4 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 5 of 29
vehemently contended that purposely or with an oblique motive, respondent no.2 did not specify as to whether its CPRT of Rs.945/- is or is not inclusive of GST which was mandatory according to him. He would contend that in case it was without GST then the final price of respondent no.2 would be higher than that of the petitioner, which is Rs.946.13 (Rs.802 + 18% GST). According to him, the mandatory fields not having been entered, financial bid of respondent no.2 ought to have been rejected at the threshold itself.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 6 of 29
decided manner, the award of contract was granted to respondent no.2 on 30.03.2025, without any reference to the petitioner. He vociferously contended that the action of requiring respondent no.2 to furnish an Indemnity Bond on 11.03.2025, even prior to the clarification dated 25.03.2025 was received from the GST department, itself establishes the pre-determined mind of DSHM which should vitiate the award of the contract to respondent no.2. Yet another significant submission of learned senior counsel is that the perversity of the tender process is writ large, in that, despite the GST department clarifying that 18% GST is indeed applicable to such services, the contract was awarded vide letter dated 30.03.2025 wherein the final price of Rs.945/- was shown as inclusive of GST. All this, according to learned senior counsel, displays collusiveness. He also points out that in case Rs.945/- is inclusive of GST, then the CPRT price of respondent no.2 in its financial bid/price bid ought to have correctly displayed the figure Rs.800.85 as exclusive of GST, which it did not. To buttress the dishonesty and falsity of respondent no.2, he invited attention to para 19 of the para-wise reply on merits of the counter affidavit of respondent no.2. Alluding to the contents therein, he would contend that respondent no.2 has changed its entire version by now claiming that Rs.945/- was inclusive of GST and that its CPRT quote is Rs.800.85 which is lower than that of the petitioner and has rightly been awarded the contract. He contended that respondent no.2 cannot re-submit its bid in such manner and ought to be disqualified. He forcefully contended that this action is dishonest and on that basis, the award of contract should be quashed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 7 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
consonance with the specific details sought in Annexure 9. According to him, these are general instructions and the details sought in Annexure 9 are particular and specific to the requirements of the contract which are sanctimonious and ought to be adhered to. He would contend that once it is demonstrated that respondent no.2 violated the specific terms of the subject tender, its bid ought to be held to be ineligible or non compliant and resultantly, the contract be quashed. 10. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel also invited attention to the statement made by DSHM before this Court and recorded in order dated 09.04.2025 to submit that the instructions received, itself displayed dishonesty. Though on 09.04.2025 it was stated that the work had commenced in both the Hospitals on 30.03.2025, yet, in the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 it was admitted that the testing machine was installed in Lok Nayak Hospital only on 29.04.2025 and the testing services commenced only on 30.04.2025. According to him, the statement was irresponsible and displayed wilful and deliberate suppression of true facts. Moreover, the statement was misleading as the petitioner lost its chance to obtain favourable order in respect of services to be offered at Lok Nayak Hospital. This deprivation was most unfair according to learned senior counsel.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 8 of 29
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/DSHM:-
Raunaq International (supra) :-
“9. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations. These would be:
(3) whether the person tendering has the ability to deliver the goods or services as per specifications. When large works contracts involving engagement of substantial manpower or requiring specific skills are to be offered, the financial ability of the tenderer to fulfil the requirements of the job is also important;
(4) the ability of the tenderer to deliver goods or services or to do the work of the requisite standard and quality;
(5) past experience of the tenderer and whether he has successfully completed similar work earlier;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 9 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
(6) time which will be taken to deliver the goods or services; and often
Even when the State or a public body enters into a commercial transaction, considerations which would prevail in its decision to award the contract to a given party would be the same. However, because the State or a public body or an agency of the State enters into such a contract, there could be, in a given case, an element of public law or public interest involved even in such a commercial transaction.”
Michigan Rubber (supra) :-
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.
24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 10 of 29
made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”? and
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?
If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 11 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
tender conditions governing the said issue in Clause II are crystal clear brooking no ambiguity. The same read thus:
“ II. Taxes & Duties :-
i. xxx xxx xxx
ii. The prices shall be inclusive of all taxes & duties leviable including GST and Entry tax etc. and the Purchaser shall not be liable for the same.
iii. xxx xxx xxx
iv. If any rates of tax are increased or decreased, a new tax is introduced, a existing tax is abolished, or any change in interpretation or application of any occurs in the course of the discharge of contract, which was or will be assessed on the bidder in connection with discharge of the contract, an equitable adjustment of the contract price shall be made to fully take into account any such change by addition to the contract price or deduction the reform as the case maybe.”
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 12 of 29
contract with the L-1 bidder. Thus, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that DSHM could not have negotiated the CPRT offered by respondent no.2 to also include GST within Rs.945/-. According to him, assuming without admitting the contention of the petitioner on this score, keeping in mind Rs.945/- as exclusive of GST, nothing prevented DSHM from negotiating with respondent no.2 to include GST within that price. He contended that though this was not required, however, this aspect is being urged only to demonstrate the hollowness of the contention of the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 13 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
evaluation committee. He would contend that once the bid evaluation process was evaluated by four separate committees, the question of such process being arbitrary or perverse is ruled out. Thus, the contention without anything more, should be rejected.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 14 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
the GST procedure and a misunderstanding of the same. While relying on notification no.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017, particularly entry at Sl. No. 74, he forcefully contended that the services offered to be provided by respondent no.2 squarely fell within the exemption of GST attracted to the said entry. He would contend that it was on that basis that respondent no.2 offered a CPRT of Rs. 945/-. According to him, the entire confusion arose purely on the basis of the petitioner’s misunderstanding of the applicability of GST to the services sought for by DSHM. He would contend that if the petitioner had understood the terms of the subject tender correctly, there would be no occasion for filing the present writ petition.
“40. It is clear that the GST, be it under the Central Act and the State Goods and Services Act, are indirect taxes imposed on the supply of goods and services or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 15 of 29
both. Except in a case falling under the reverse tax mechanism, it is the supplier of the goods and services, who would remain liable to pay the tax. The supplier is obliged to file the returns which includes monthly returns and annual return. He is to self-assess and pay the tax in accordance with the provisions. There is provision for provisional assessment of tax in Section 60. It becomes the duty of the taxing authority to assess and recover the tax due. No doubt, under the reverse tax mechanism, in regard to the specified transactions and persons covered thereunder, it would be the recipient of the goods and services or both, which would be liable to pay the tax due on the supply of goods or services or both, to it. Having borne in mind the above brief overview of the tax regime under the Central Act and the State Act, we may not proceed to consider the case in greater detail.
41. What is involved before the Court is not a direct challenge to the terms of the tender. The writ petitioner did not choose to challenge the terms of the NIT dated 9-4-2019 despite admitted understanding of the working of similar tender notification leading to some of the bidders showing the GST rate at 5% and even writing about it. The writ petitioner chose to participate in it and filed its bid, showing the tax rate at 18%. The entities, which were shown as entitled to rank as L-1 to L-3, have shown the tax GST liability as 5% on the product. It is thereafter that the writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs, we have already noticed.
42. The appellants stand in the shoes of a purchaser of goods and services. By the global tender floated by the appellants, the appellants called for e-tenders from intending suppliers of the goods. The terms of the tender were well-known to the tenderers. Under Clause 2.7.6, undoubtedly, the bidders and the tenderers, while quoting the rates, were to clearly indicate the rate of applicable duties and taxes included in the price quoted by them. Let us pause for a moment and analyse its true meaning. Under the said clause, the bidders were to quote the rate of applicable duties and taxes, which were included in the price quoted by them. This clause must be read in conjunction with Clause 2.8.6, which provides that the purchaser (appellants) will not be responsible for the payment of taxes and duties paid by the supplier, on the basis of the misclassification or a misapprehension of law. This would mean that the appellants as purchaser was making it clear that it will have no liability to shoulder, in the payment of tax if it is found that, while indicating the rate of applicable duty or tax by the tenderer, it has wrongly quoted a rate which is lower than the rate, which it was liable to pay in law. The quoting of the rate, in other words, by the tenderer, within the meaning of Clause 2.7.6, would bind the tenderer and he would not be heard to say that he had arrived at the rate and made the bid and which stood accepted, on the basis of misapprehension of law or misclassification. On the one hand, Clause 2.7.6 gives the impression that all the bidders/tenderers should clearly indicate the rate of the applicable duty and tax in the price quoted by them.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 16 of 29
43. We must however read it in conjunction with Clause 2.9.2. The said clause provides for a clear duty with the tenderer to acquaint themselves with all the applicable taxes and duties. It further provides that in a case, where the taxes and duties are not indicated explicitly in their offer, the same will be considered, which means, the offer will be considered as inclusive. The meaning of this clause can only be that while ordinarily the tenderer would and should include in the tender not only the base price but the taxes and the rate of tax and arrive at the global sum at which he is making the bid, Clause 2.9.2 provides for the contingency of the tenderer not indicating about the applicable taxes and duties. In other words, he merely quotes a sum without specifically mentioning about the taxes and duties or the rates. This is pointed out by the learned ASG to contend that the fallacy committed by the High Court lies in it, not giving full meaning to the said clause.
44. We would understand that the working of the statutory variation clause would be as follows:
44.1. The successful tenderer must clearly indicate the rate of tax/duty in his offer. There must be a variation in the tax and duty, which takes place after the submission of the bid. There cannot be any claim for such statutory variation on account of misclassification by successful tenderer. If these conditions are met, then, the purchaser, under the statutory variation clause, would appear to undertake the liability, to pay to the successful tenderer, the differential tax or duty.
44.2. A perusal of Clause 2.7.7, which is the result of the first amendment would appear to indicate that for the tenders opening after roll out of GST, all the bidders, tenderers must ensure that they are GST compliant and their quoted tax structure/rates are as per the GST norms. This clause again must be read in conjunction with Clause 2.9.2, which makes it clear that a tenderer may quote a rate without including any tax component.
45. It is clear that the clauses read together will yield the following result, bearing in mind also the GST regime. The liability to pay tax under the GST regime is on the supplier. He must make inquires and make an informed decision as to what would be the relevant HSN Code applicable to the items and the rate of tax applicable. Thereafter, when he makes the bid, the issue of competition for winning the bid, would come into clear focus. The goal of the bidder ordinarily is to emerge successful and bag the contract. The extent of profit that he would earn, is a matter, which is essentially a matter to be decided by him. He may, for germane reasons, wish to bag a contract, with situations ranging from one extreme end of the spectrum viz. even when the prospect of a loss stares at him, or a slightly brighter outcome viz. the contract working on a break-even basis or moving on to an even more optimistic possibility, namely, of the contract earning him profit, which he is willing to take at a modest rate or a rate which he
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 17 of 29
considers as reasonable in his understanding and circumstances. This is a matter to be left to the commercial expediency of the bidder. Now, when the matter is viewed from the perspective of the purchaser, the purchaser seeks to buy goods and services or both by awarding the contract to the lowest bidder. When the purchaser happens to be the State, it would be not fair or reasonable to not expect it to accept the bid of the lowest bidder unless it decides to not accept the bid of the lowest bidder for reasons which are fair and legal. No doubt, it is not the law that the Government is bound to accept the lowest bid. It is always open to the Government for relevant, valid and fair reasons, to not accept even the lowest bid.
xxx xxx xxx
51. The argument of the writ petitioner, which has found favour with the High Court and reiterated before us by Shri Amar Dave, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that since the tender conditions contemplate the adding of the tax to the base price for the purpose of arriving at the ranking, which, in turn, will determine, as to who will be the successful bidder, there is the unfair trade practice indulged in by some of the bidders to understate the rate of tax. There is an eminent need for the State (appellants) to indicate the HSN Code. Once it is indicated, it becomes a panacea, as it were, to the evil, which has been perceived and successfully pressed by the writ petitioner. Is that so? The answer to this question, has both legal and factual dimensions.
52. As far as the legal aspects are concerned, the fundamental question, we must pose is, whether there exists any public duty with the appellants to indicate the HSN Code when they float a public tender. Here the learned ASG is correct, when he points out that there is no statutory duty cast on the appellants to indicate the HSN Code in a tender of the kind we are concerned with. Proceeding on the basis that a public duty may emerge, not merely from a statute but in various other ways, which has been touched upon, in Andi Mukta [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691] as also, in Mansukhlal [Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1120 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1784] and even on an expansive exploration, does such a duty flow from any other legitimate source?”
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 18 of 29
tender document, the respondent no.2 had indicated the CPRT of Rs.945/without any GST, while in para 19, respondent no.2 has twisted the facts to now say that Rs.945/- is inclusive of GST and the original price of CPRT quoted ought to be reckoned at Rs.800.85/-. He vehemently contended that this would amount to alteration of its original bid and consequentially the award of contract dated 30.03.2025 indicating the price at Rs.945/- inclusive of GST, is a material variation of the tender terms and cannot be allowed. If that be so, according to learned senior counsel, both DSHM as well as respondent no.2 had violated the mandatory conditions and resultantly the award of contract dated 30.03.2025 ought to be quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner ought to be awarded the contract.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 19 of 29
GST to the present tender conditions, in our opinion, has been clarified beyond doubt by the GST department itself vide the letter dated 25.03.2025 which is extracted hereunder:-
“GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES POLICY & RESEARCH BRANCH, VYAPAR BHAWAN, IP ESTATE NEW DELHI – 110002
No.F.3(620)/P&R/DST/2025/ Dated: 25.05.2025
To
The Special Secretary (H&FW)& MD(DSHM), GNCTD Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Room No.902, 9th level, A-Wing, Delhi Sectt, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110002.
Sub.: Clarification w.r.t. applicability of GST. Respected Sir,
With reference to your office Letter No.SSHFW1/235 dated 21st March, 2025 on the above cited subject, I am directed to inform that in terms of Notification No.11/2017 (Central Tax Rate) dated 28.06.2017, 18% GST is chargeable on Human Health & Social Care Services
Yours faithfully, sd/- (Anita Kumari) GSTO (P&R)”
Since a pointed query was sent to the GST Department by DSHM, it is apparent that the response thereto by the said department puts the controversy beyond the pale of doubt. In that, 18% GST is indeed chargeable on Human Health and Social Care Services. Undoubtedly, the services sought by DSHM and offered by both the petitioner as also the respondent no.2 are squarely covered under the “Human Health and Social Care Services” on which 18% GST
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 20 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
appears to be chargeable. In that context, so far as the Notification No.12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and relied upon by the respondent no.2 is concerned, having regard to the latest clarification tendered by the GST Department itself affirming 18% GST chargeable on the services sought, we are impelled to rely on the said clarification being “ contemporanea expositio ”. Moreover, we are not called upon to decide the correctness of the Notification or the clarificatory letter issued by the same department. Ergo , the issue as to whether the 18% GST is chargeable or not is answered in the affirmative. That said, we now need to consider as to whether for the purposes of selecting the L-1 bidder, the CPRT without GST is essential or whether price with GST inclusive would be relevant.
“ ANNEXURE-9 PRICE BID
Tender’s Name- Entering into Rate Contract for Providing NAT Testing Facility (ID-NAT) on turnkey/reagent rental basis for 02 sites (1 for LNH & 1 for DU) .
Qty.:-As and when required during Rate Contract period
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 21 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
(Bidders should quote “destination price” i.e. at consignee(s), New Delhi inclusive of all statutory taxes i.e. GST, Insurance, forwarding charges, packaging and handling charges, third party expenses and all other charges etc. in the prescribed format only.)
| S.No. | Description of Tests |
Appropriate Number of tests to be conducted during the initial 1 year |
Rate reportable (without in Rs |
Per test GST) |
%GST | Final reportable test (including GST) in Rs. |
Total amount during contract (including GST) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G=C x F | |
| 1 | NAT Testing Reportable Test (CPRT) |
38000 |
Note: L1 bidder will be selected on the basis of grand total of price quoted in column G.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 22 of 29
its price indicating that no GST is chargeable at all, that the conundrum arose. Both parties were completely at variance with each other in so far as chargeability of GST is concerned. On the one hand, petitioner was of the opinion that 18% GST is chargeable on such services while respondent no.2, relying upon the Notification No.12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/6/2017 was clearly of the opinion that no GST is applicable at all for the same services. It was this controversy which led the DSHM to seek clarification from the GST Department. As observed above, by the letter dated 25.03.2025, the GST Department clarified that for the services sought under the tender document, 18% GST was chargeable.
“II. Taxes & Duties:-
i. xxx xxx xxx
ii. The prices shall be inclusive of all taxes & duties leviable including GST and Entry tax etc. and the Purchaser shall not be liable for the same.
iii. xxx xxx xxx
iv. If any rates of tax are increased or decreased, a new tax is introduced, a existing tax is abolished, or any change in interpretation or application of any occurs in the course of the discharge of contract, which was or will be assessed on the bidder in connection with discharge of the contract, an equitable adjustment of the contract price shall be made to fully take into account any such change by addition to the contract price or deduction the reform as the case maybe.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 23 of 29
the DSHM was not to be made liable for the same; and (2) as per clause (iv) if there is any increase or decrease in rate of taxes etc., during the period of execution of the contract, an equitable adjustment of the contract price is to be taken as per the situation.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 24 of 29
is in violation of the tender conditions so specified in Annexure 9.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 25 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
furnish an indemnity bond in that context cannot be said to be a perverse or an arbitrary exercise. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the award of contract to respondent no.2 by DSHM considering the same as inclusive of GST @ 18% may not be amenable to interference or interdiction. 36. Having observed as above, yet we find a disturbing feature in the tender process. Annexure 9 is undoubtedly a relevant part of the tender document. As a corollary it is obvious that all the fields which were required to be entered in Annexure 9 would also be a relevant consideration. It is also not disputed that respondent no.2 did not specify as to whether its quote of Rs. 945/- was or was not inclusive of GST as required in Annexure 9. Though, respondent no.2 contended that according to it GST was not chargeable, the same is belied by the letter dated 25.03.2025 of the GST Department which in no uncertain terms clarified that 18% GST is chargeable on Human Health and Social Care Services. If that be so, when the DSHM was in receipt of such information, it was incumbent upon it to call both the parties for further clarification or negotiations before finalising the award of contract. This provision of price negotiation is provided in the tender document at sub clause (xvi) of Clause IV of the General Terms and Conditions of the subject tender. The same is extracted hereunder:
“xvi Price Negotiation :- In exceptional circumstances negotiations can be undertaken but only with the prior approval of the Competent Authority, e.g., where there is no competition or where there is shortage of capacity or where the items/ stores required are known to be manufactured only by two or three firms. Such negotiations shall be conducted by Committee consisting of representatives of Indenter, Purchase, Finance and such other members Competent Authority may like to nominate. The lowest quoted technically qualified bidder/ bidders will be considered as L1 and called for negotiation, if required, to enter into the rate contract.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 26 of 29
W.P.(C) 4384/2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 27 of 29
executed by respondent no.2 since April 2025 and the award of contract is for a period of 1 year and would be over in March-April 2026. Having regard thereto, we are not interdicting the tender or the contract issued in favour of respondent no.2 at this belated stage lest it may cause significant disruptions to the services being offered and would surely disturb the public services, which are paramount to any tender.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 28 of 29
in the commercial field. The same has been applied here too.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA (JUDGE)
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA (CHIEF JUSTICE)
NOVEMBER 26, 2025/ rl/yrj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4384/2025 By:YASHRAJ Signing Da te:2 7.11.2025 19:04:21
Page 29 of 29
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the tendering authority could treat the successful bidder's quoted rate as inclusive of 18% GST despite ambiguity in Annexure 9 of the tender document.
Whether awarding the contract without calling both bidders for clarification or negotiation violated fairness and transparency obligations.
Whether judicial review should interdict the contract awarded under the NAT testing facility tender.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors.Relied on¶40
(2012) 8 SCC 216 · Who else cites this
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors.Relied on¶40
(1999) 1 SCC 492 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Ors. v. Bharat Forge Ltd & Anr.Applied¶41
(2022) 17 SCC 188 · Who else cites this
Tata Cellular v. Union of IndiaReferred¶40
(1994) 6 SCC 651 · Who else cites this
Subodh Kumar Singh Rathore v. Chief Executive Officers & Ors.Referred¶40
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Roche Diagnostics India Private Limited
Delhi State Health Mission
Tushar Rao Gedela
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
