Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1097 (GAU)

Progressive Enterprises v. State Of Assam

2025-06-24

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department as well as Mr. PP Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner has put to challenge the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid by the State respondents. The respondent No. 7 has also been declared to be the lowest bidder (L1) by the State respondents, pursuant to the NIT dated 08.01.2025 for supply of Cardiac Monitor with Defibrillator (Q2). 3. The petitioner’s case is that subsequent to the opening of the technical bids on 11.02.2025, the petitioner had been sent an email dated 11.02.2025 requesting for providing the following documents:- 1. Conformity to Manufactures Certification-ISO 9001 & IS0 13485, 2. ECG monitoring- Using 5/6 lead, 3. Bidder Average Turn Over Certificate from CA (last 3 years)-2 Cr, 4. Bidder/OEM (themselves or through resellers) Past Experience (3 Year), 5. USFDA/EU/CE ISO 9001:2015, 13485:2016 Certificate, 6. Declaration for spare part availability, 7. Bidder financial standing certificate. 4. The petitioner thereafter supplied the documents as required in the clarification on 11.02.2025, i.e., on the same day itself. 5. The Technical Bid Committee thereafter held a meeting on 21.02.2025, wherein the bids of three bidders were found to be qualified and the bids of the three other bidders were found to be disqualified. The petitioner’s bid was amongst those disqualified by the Technical Committee during the technical bid evaluation stage on 21.02.2025, due to the following reasons/grounds: Sl. No Name of Participating Bidders and Quoted Make & Model Whether bidder technically qualifies as per tender clauses (Yes/No) If no then the reason of disqualification of bidder 6. PROGRESSIVE ENTERPRISES Make : METSL Model : VITAL WAVE No 1. Bidder did not submit Average Annual Turnover for FY 2023-24 2. Bidder did not submit details of skilled & trained service engineers based at Assam. 3. Bidder/OEM did not submit past experience documents. 4. Bidder did not submit EU Certificate. 5. Bidder did not submit financial standing certificate. 6. Bidder did not submit declaration on spare part availability. 6. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 24.02.2025 to the Director of Medical Education, Assam stating that all the required documents had been submitted by the petitioner, at the time of uploading/submission of the bids and that they had also provided the clarificatory documents required. 6. Bidder did not submit declaration on spare part availability. 6. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 24.02.2025 to the Director of Medical Education, Assam stating that all the required documents had been submitted by the petitioner, at the time of uploading/submission of the bids and that they had also provided the clarificatory documents required. The petitioner, while submitting his representation dated 24.02.2025, had also re-submitted the following documents:- “1. Bidder Average Annual Turnover from CA (last 3 years) 2 Cr: Enclosed. 2. Details of skilled & trained service engineers based at Assam: Enclosed. 3. Bidder’s/OEM’s Past Experience documents: Enclosed. 4. EU CE Certificate: Enclosed. 5. Bidders financial Standing: Enclosed. 6. Declaration on Spare Parts availability: Enclosed.” 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in reply to the petitioner’s representation dated 24.02.2025, the State respondents uploaded the rejection of the petitioner’s representation on 07.03.2025, by stating as follows:- “Rejected Bidders Average Annual Turnover from CA- The submitted document is not properly addressed and lacks the CA’s signature, making it non-compliant. (Read less).” 8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the reply dated 07.03.2025 to the petitioner’s representation dated 24.02.2025, having held that the petitioner’s technical bid had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner’s average annual turnover from the Chartered Accountant (CA) was not properly addressed and lacked the CA’s signature, which made it non-compliant, the same showed that the only basis for rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid was reduced to the ground mentioned in the communication uploaded in the portal dated 07.03.2025, i.e., the petitioner’s average annual turnover not being properly addressed and due to the same lacking the CA’s signature. 9. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that in terms of Clause 19 of the Bid Document, a bidder has to submit documentary evidence in the form of certified audited balance sheets of relevant periods or a certificate from the Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant indicating the turnover details for the relevant period shall be uploaded with the bid. The petitioner having uploaded the certified audited balance sheet of the relevant period, the petitioner was not required to submit the minimum average annual financial turnover of the bidder for the last three years. However, the petitioner had submitted not only the certified audited balance sheet, but also the certificate from the Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant, indicating the bidder turnover criteria for the relevant period at the time of uploading his bid. 10. However, the petitioner had submitted not only the certified audited balance sheet, but also the certificate from the Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant, indicating the bidder turnover criteria for the relevant period at the time of uploading his bid. 10. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that the petitioner’s bid was approximately Rs.60,00,000/- below the bid of the respondent No. 7 and as such, there is a public element involved in the present contract. 11. Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the Health Department submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid had been done, not only on the ground of the petitioner’s not having submitted an average annual turnover signed by a CA, which was not properly addressed, but also due to the the other grounds mentioned in the uploaded communication in the GeM Portal on 21.02.2025. 12. At the outset, this Court finds that the petitioner’s bid had been disqualified not only due to the six grounds mentioned in the Technical Committee meeting dated 21.02.2025, but also due to the State respondents reply dated 07.03.2025, which is connected to ground No.1. The issue to be decided is whether the disqualification of the petitioner’s technical bid, in terms of the six reasons/grounds given by the Technical Committee and the reply dated 07.03.2025, was justified or not. The same would have to be seen on the basis of the terms and conditions of the tender vis-à-vis the documents that had been uploaded by the petitioner. 13. The submissions of the counsels for the petitioner and the State respondents, with regard to the six reasons given by the State respondents, for disqualifying the petitioner’s bid, are as follows:- (i) “The bidder did not submit average annual turnover for FY 2023-2024” In this regard, Clause 19 of the Buyer Added Bid Specific Terms and Conditions of the NIT states as follows:- “ 19. Turnover Bidder Turn Over Criteria: The minimum average annual financial turnover of the bidder during the last three years, ending on 31st March of the previous financial year, should be as indicated in the bid document. Documentary evidence in the form of certified Audited Balance Sheets of relevant periods or a certificate from the Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant Indicating the turnover details for the relevant period shall be uploaded with the bld. Documentary evidence in the form of certified Audited Balance Sheets of relevant periods or a certificate from the Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant Indicating the turnover details for the relevant period shall be uploaded with the bld. In case the date of constitution/incorporation of the bidder is less than 3 year old, the average turnover in respect of the completed financial years after the date of constitution shall be taken into account for this criteria.” 14. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department submits that the petitioner had uploaded the certified audited balance sheet of the relevant period and a certificate from the Chartered Accountant, indicating the turnover detail for the relevant period and as such, the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid on this count may not be sustainable. (ii) Bidder did not submit details of skilled and trained service engineers based at Assam. Sub-Clause 12 of Clause 4 of the JICA Funded Procurement of the Bid Document provides as follows:- “12. Service & Support Added: Bidder should have skilled & trained service engineers based at Assam.” The Technical Committee had held that “the bidder did not submit details of skilled and trained service engineers based at Assam.” 15. In this respect, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department submits that Sub-Clause 12 of Clause 4 has to be read with Clause 22 & 23 of the “Buyer Added Bid Specific Terms and Conditions” of the NIT, which is as follows:- “22. Service & Support Dedicated/toll Free Telephone No. for Service Support: BIDDER/OEM must have Dedicated/toll Free Telephone No. for Service Support. 23. Service & Support Escalation Matrix For Service Support: Bidder/OEM must provide Escalation Matrix of Telephone Numbers for Service Support. ” Though the petitioner had uploaded a document, showing various skilled and trained service engineers for service and support of the machines to be procured by the Department, the document submitted by the petitioner did not indicate that any of the skilled and trained service engineers therein were based in Assam. Further, the petitioner had subsequently written a letter dated 24.02.2025 after the last date of submission of the bid, i.e. on 29.01.2025, which is to the following effect:- ”We hereby confirm that we do not have skilled & trained service engineer based at Assam to meet up any types of technical service support on time. Further, the petitioner had subsequently written a letter dated 24.02.2025 after the last date of submission of the bid, i.e. on 29.01.2025, which is to the following effect:- ”We hereby confirm that we do not have skilled & trained service engineer based at Assam to meet up any types of technical service support on time. The details are given below:- Engineer name: Mr. Jadav Tumung Education Qualification: B.Tech. Years of Experience: 4 years. Contact Detail: 8472895162 Email iD- Allsinghrocyy032@gmail.com” Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the above letter clearly proved the fact that the petitioner’s bid documents did not contain the name of any skilled and trained service engineers based at Assam, prior to the last date of submission of the bid. As such, there was no infirmity with the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid. On the other hand, Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no clarification on this count had been asked for by the State respondents and the clarification that had been asked for, vide e-mail dated 11.02.2025, was on a different issue, as has already been provided in the said e-mail. It was mandatory to have engineers based in Assam, but not mandatory to provide/submit the list of engineers in terms of sub-Clause 12 of Clause 4, though it was necessary to provide a list in relation of Clause 22 & 23 only. He accordingly submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to make a clarification on the said issue. However, the petitioner had submitted a list of skilled and trained service engineers in relation to Clause 22 & 23 of the Buyer Added Bid Specific Terms & Conditions of the NIT and one among them, i.e. Mr. Parthajit Sarma, at Serial No. 8 of the said list, was based in Assam. He submits that there was no requirement to submit the list of skilled and trained service engineers based at Assam. The only requirement was that the bidders were to have in their employment such engineers based at Assam. 16. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the list of skilled and trained service engineers provided by the petitioner does not indicate that any of them were from Assam. Further, serial No. 8 Mr. Parthajit Sarma, was not a skilled and trained service engineer, but was the Senior Sales Executive, as per the designation given in the list uploaded by the petitioner. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the list of skilled and trained service engineers provided by the petitioner does not indicate that any of them were from Assam. Further, serial No. 8 Mr. Parthajit Sarma, was not a skilled and trained service engineer, but was the Senior Sales Executive, as per the designation given in the list uploaded by the petitioner. (iii) The 3rd ground for rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid was “ (iii) Bidder/OEM did not submit past experience document”. 17. Clause 2 & 4 of the NIT provides as follows:- “ 2. Experience Criteria: In respect of the filter applied for experience criteria, the Bidder or its OEM (themselves or rough reseller(s) should have regularly, manufactured and supplied same or similar Category Products to any Central/State Govt Organization/PSU for number of Financial years as indicated above in the bid document before the bid opening date. Copies of relevant contracts to be submitted along with bid in support of having supplied some quantity during each of the Financial year. In case of bunch bids, the category of primary product having highest value should meet this criterion. 4. Past Performance: The Bidder or its OEM (themselves or through re- seller(s)) should have supplied same or similar Category Products for 50% of bid quantity, in at least one of the last three Financial years before the bid opening date to any Central/State Govt Organization/PSU. Copies of relevant contracts (proving supply of cumulative order quantity in any one financial year) to be submitted along with bid in support of quantity supplied in the relevant Financial year. In case of bunch bids, the category related to primary product having highest bid value should meet this criterion.” 18. Clause 30 of the Buyer Added Bid Specific Terms and Conditions of the NIT states as follows:- “ 30. Past Project Experience Proof for Past Experience and Project Experience clause : For fulfilling the experience criteria any one of the following documents may be considered as valid proof for meeting the experience criteria. Contract copy along with Invoice(s) with self-certification by the bidder that service/supplies against the invoices have been executed b. Execution certificate by client with contract value.c. Any other document in support of contract execution like Third Party Inspection release note, etc. Contract copy along with Invoice(s) with self-certification by the bidder that service/supplies against the invoices have been executed b. Execution certificate by client with contract value.c. Any other document in support of contract execution like Third Party Inspection release note, etc. Proof for Past Experience and Project Experience clause: For fulfilling the experience criteria any one of the following documents may be considered as valid proof for meeting the experience criteria. Contract copy along with Invoice(s) with self-certification by the bidder that service/supplies against the invoices have been executed. b. Execution certificate by client with contract value. c. Any other document in support of contract execution like Third Party Inspection release note, etc.” 19. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the petitioner only submitted their contract copy along with the invoice, which was self attested to show that he had the experience criteria. He submits that there was no document/certificate issued by the procuring authority, to show that the petitioner had the experience/performance criteria required of a bidder. Mr. B. Gogoi further submits that there is nothing to show in the invoice submitted by the petitioner that he had supplied a similar type of product earlier. On the other hand, Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there was no requirement for the procuring authority to issue any experience criteria certificate or past performance certificate, in respect of the supplies undertaken by the petitioner from the procuring authority. He submits that the ground taken by the Technical Committee for disqualifying the petitioner is that the petitioner did not submit past experience document. The same has however been submitted and the respondents are only now trying to put holes on the merit of the past experience documents submitted by the petitioner. He submits that the issue of whether the past experience document submitted by the petitioner has merit or not is not the issue to be decided and the only issue that was to be decided, was as to whether the petitioner had submitted past experience document. He submits that the submission of Mr. B. Gogoi clearly shows that there is an admission by the State respondents that the petitioner had submitted the past experience document. However, the same may not be upto the standard required by the respondent authority. He submits that the careful perusal of the invoice shows that the petitioner had supplied a similar product earlier. B. Gogoi clearly shows that there is an admission by the State respondents that the petitioner had submitted the past experience document. However, the same may not be upto the standard required by the respondent authority. He submits that the careful perusal of the invoice shows that the petitioner had supplied a similar product earlier. (IV) “Bidder did not submit ‘U’ Certificate” 20. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Health Department submits that the above pertains to the technical specifications required of the product to be supplied and especially with regard to the additional specification parameters i.e. “Certification required .... US FDA or EU CE (four digit notified). 21. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the Certificate that has been submitted by the petitioner had expired on 27.05.2024, i.e. before the submission of the petitioner’s technical bid. As such, the petitioner’s bid document had violated the terms and conditions of the NIT. On the other hand, Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Certificate had expired on 27.05.2024, the petitioner had applied for extending the validity/revalidating of the Certificate. However, during the period between the expiry period and the actual issuance of the extended validity/revalidation of the Certificate, transition timelines are provided by the concerned Certifying Authority i.e. MTIC Intercert, which provides that the products manufactured by the them under Certification of the Class IIb Devices was extended up to 31.12.2028. He submits that Class IIb devices refers to the product that is to be supplied by the tenderers i.e. Model Vital Wave. He thus submits that the Certificate submitted by the petitioner cannot be said to be an expired Certificate. (V) “Bidder did not submit Financial Standing Certificate” 22. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the above refers to Clause 3 of the Buyer Added Bids Specific Terms and Conditions of the NIT, which provides as follows : “3. Generic Bidder financial standing : The bidder should not be under liquidation, court receivership or similar proceedings, should not be bankrupt. Bidder to upload undertaking to this effect with bid.” 23. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the petitioner did not submit the Financial Standing Certificate. On the other hand Mr. Generic Bidder financial standing : The bidder should not be under liquidation, court receivership or similar proceedings, should not be bankrupt. Bidder to upload undertaking to this effect with bid.” 23. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the petitioner did not submit the Financial Standing Certificate. On the other hand Mr. A. Sharma submits that a bidder was not required to submit a Financial Standing Certificate, inasmuch as, the bidder was only to upload an undertaking to the effect that the bidder was not under liquidation, Court receivership or similar proceedings and should not be bankrupt. The petitioner’s undertaking dated 26.01.2025, that had been submitted along with the bid documents, was in terms of Clause 3 and the same states as follows : “We, M/s Progressive Enterprises, having our office at Nayantara Complex, 2 floor, Sixmile, G.S Road, Guwahati-781022, do hereby declared that we are not under liquidation, court receivership or similar proceedings and we do not stand bankrupt”. (VI) “Bidder did not submit declaration on Spare Parts availability” 24. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the 6th ground for disqualifying the petitioner’s technical bid relates to Clause 8 of the Special Terms and Conditions–Version:2 of the NIT which states as follows : “8. Spare Parts: Seller shall provide materials, information etc. pertaining to spare parts manufactured and supplied by the OEM. It shall be ensured that the required spares are available for purchase at least for 10 years from date of supplies. In case due to any reasons the production of the spare parts is discontinued sufficient advance notice should be given to the buyer/consignee before such discontinuation to provide adequate time to purchase the required spare parts etc. Further, OEM and their service centres/dealers shall carry sufficient inventories to assure ex-stock supply of consumables and spares for the equipments so that the same are available OEM or reseller shall always accord most favoured client status to the buyer/consignee and shall give the most competitive price for spares and consumables of its machines/equipments supplied.” 25. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the petitioner had not provided materials, information etc. pertaining to the spare parts manufactured and supplied by the OEM. He submits that the petitioner had only made a List of Spare parts which could be supplied by the OEM, without providing any materials or information regarding the same. On the other hand, Mr. Mr. B. Gogoi submits that the petitioner had not provided materials, information etc. pertaining to the spare parts manufactured and supplied by the OEM. He submits that the petitioner had only made a List of Spare parts which could be supplied by the OEM, without providing any materials or information regarding the same. On the other hand, Mr. A. Sharma submits that the List of Spare Parts provided by the petitioner, vide letter dated 23.01.2025, meets the requirement under Clause 8 of the Special Terms and Conditions–Version: 2 of the NIT. Additionally, the petitioner had given the list regarding the availability of Spare Parts for 10 years. 26. Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that in terms of Clause 1 of the NIT, which requires a bidder to submit the minimum st average annual financial turnover during the last three years ending 31 of March of the previous year, documentary evidence in the form of certified audited balance sheet of the relevant period or a certificate from a Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant indicating the turnover details for the relevant period was to be uploaded in the bid. He submits that the annual turnover statement of the petitioner, as annexed, which has been provided by way of two documents, one being addressed to the Managing Director, Assam Medical Services Corporation Limited dated 26.12.2024 and the annual turnover statement dated 31.10.2023, when compared with the balance sheet submitted by the petitioner shows that the average annual turnover for the year 2022-23 and 2023-24 has not been furnished. The 2 documents dated 26.12.2024 & 31.10.2023 are reproduced herein as follows:- (Amount in Rupees) Financial Year 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Average Annual Turnover 47,02,93,190.10 27,03,06,504.38 55,69,57,804.64 43,25,19,166.37 Net Worth (as on the last day of the Financial Year) 69740475.98 6,54,18,127.66 8,54,55,744.19 The petitioner has given information certified by a Chartered Accountant for the financial years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, which are as follows:- Financial Year Average Annual Turnover 2020-21 33,04,58,589.80 2021-22 47,02,93,190.10 2022-23 27,03,06,504.38 Total: 1,07,10,58,284.28 Average: 35,70,19,428.09 27. The counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that with respect to the financial year 2020-2021, the petitioner had also submitted his balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2021, which showed the amount of Rs.33,04,58,589.80/-. Similarly the balance sheet for the financial year 2021-2022 showed the amount of Rs.47,02,93,190.10/-. The counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that with respect to the financial year 2020-2021, the petitioner had also submitted his balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2021, which showed the amount of Rs.33,04,58,589.80/-. Similarly the balance sheet for the financial year 2021-2022 showed the amount of Rs.47,02,93,190.10/-. However, the profit and loss account for the year 2022- 2023 does not show the amount of Rs.27,03,06,504.38/-. He also submits that the average annual turnover for the year 2023-2024 has not been submitted by the petitioner. 28. Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that in terms of Clause 2 & 4 of the NIT which requires a bidder to submit his experience criteria and past performance, a bidder was to show that he had supplied the same or similar category of products for 50% of the bid quantity. In this respect, he submits that the petitioner’s past contract and the invoice submitted by him was incomplete and the complete invoice of the petitioner, as provided in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 7, goes to show that the product to be supplied by the petitioner was different from the product that had been supplied by him earlier. He submits that the invoices submitted by the petitioner did not show that the past product supplied by the petitioner had the facility for internal defibrillation, while the specification and capability parameter of Cardiac Monitor with defibrillator that had to be supplied, required that it should have the facility for internal defibrillation. He also submits that the petitioner has not submitted the specification part of his past contracts, to indicate his past experience in supplying a similar or same type of Cardiac Monitor with defibrillator. On the other hand, Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has supplied a similar product, which is as per the NIT and that he would be supplying a cardiac monitor with defibrillator having internal defibrillator facility. 29. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 30. As can be seen from the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, the petitioner’s technical bid had been disqualified on 6(six) grounds by the Technical Bid, which are as follows:- 1) Bidder did not submit Average Annual Turnover for FY 2023-24. 29. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 30. As can be seen from the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, the petitioner’s technical bid had been disqualified on 6(six) grounds by the Technical Bid, which are as follows:- 1) Bidder did not submit Average Annual Turnover for FY 2023-24. 2) Bidder did not submit details of skilled & trained service engineers based at Assam. 3) Bidder/OEM did not submit past experience documents. 4) Bidder did not submit EU Certificate. 5) Bidder did not submit financial standing certificate. 6) Bidder did not submit declaration on spare part availability. 31. A reading of the above six reasons shows that the petitioner has not submitted any of the documents that was required. However, the affidavit of the respondent No.4 has given more detailed reasons with regard to the disqualification of the petitioner’s technical bid, which is as follows:- Sl . No. Grounds of Rejection BID/ATC Reference No. Document submitted after disqualification (Not acceptable for re-evaluation) 1 Bidder did not submit Average Annual Turnover for FY 2023-24 Buyer added bid specific Terms and Conditions, Point No. 19 (Page no.10 of the Bid Document) The turnover certificate was addressed wrongly with no seal and signed by CA 2 Bidder did not submit details of skilled and trained service engineers based at Assam Buyer added bid specific ATC JICA Funded Procurement Point No.12 (Page No. 15 of the Bid Document) Details of Service Engineer submitted 3 Bidder/OEM did not submit past experience document Page No. 3 of the Bid Document Resubmitted the previously uploaded document 4 Bidder did not submit Financial Standing Certificate Buyer added bid specific Terms and Conditions, Point No.3 (Page no.8 of the Bid Document) Resubmitted the previously uploaded document 5 Bidder did not submit EU Certificate Additional Specified Parameter, Point No. 2 (Page No. 6 of the Bid Document) The new document submitted after rejections 6 Bidder did not submit declaration on spare part availability Special Terms and Conditions Version 2 from 21.10.2022, Point No.8 (Page no.7 of the Bid Document) Not submitted any document 32. With regard to the first reason given by the Technical Committee for disqualifying the petitioner’s bid, it has been submitted by Mr. With regard to the first reason given by the Technical Committee for disqualifying the petitioner’s bid, it has been submitted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department that the petitioner had uploaded certified audited balance sheet of the relevant period and the certificate from the Chartered Accountant. However, on a perusal of the balance sheets that had been uploaded by the petitioner, there is nothing to show that the balance sheet for the year 2022-2023 proved that the annual turnover of the petitioner was Rs.55,69,57,804.64/-, though the said amount has been indicated in the certificate dated 26.12.2024 addressed to the Managing Director, Assam Medical Services Corporation Limited, who is not a party to this case. Further, the certificate dated 26.12.2024 has not been signed by a Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant. However, the certificate dated 31.10.2023 showing the average annual turnover of the petitioner for the year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 shows that the same has been signed by a Chartered Accountant. Though the petitioner’s counsel stand was that, as the UDIN No. is reflected in the certificate dated 26.12.2024, the same is akin to the certificate being signed by a Chartered Accountant. This Court is of the view that though a UDIN number can be correlated with a particular Chartered Accountant (CA), the NIT required the signature of a CA. As such, the requirements of the NIT would have to be followed, as per the interpretation of the author of the tender terms and conditions. 33. On considering the submission of the respondent No.7, it is also seen that no trading account has been submitted by the petitioner, showing his annual turnover of Rs.27,03,06,504.38/-, which has been reflected in the certificate dated 26.12.2024 addressed to the Managing Director, Assam Medical Services Corporation Limited. Thus, the issue to be decided is whether a trading account is a part of the balance sheet and this trading account does not have a balance sheet, whether it can be said that the trading account is complete in itself. 34. This Court is of the view that as the petitioner had submitted the audited balance sheet and a certificate from the Chartered Accountant, the reason for disqualifying the petitioner’s technical bid on ground No.1 was not sustainable. 34. This Court is of the view that as the petitioner had submitted the audited balance sheet and a certificate from the Chartered Accountant, the reason for disqualifying the petitioner’s technical bid on ground No.1 was not sustainable. This Court is also of the view that a trading account cannot be said to be a part of the balance sheet, as the names itself suggest, though the trading account could justify a portion of the balance sheet. The balance sheet represents the financial position of a business at any given point in time. It shows the company’s assets along with their finances, which may be by debt and/or equity. Thus, the three aspects of a balance sheet are assets, liabilities and equity. A trading account in essence, focuses on the profit and loss of a business, while a balance sheet provides a snapshot of the company’s financial standing. The issue to be decided in terms of the NIT, was not with regard to whether the information provided was up to the mark, but only as to whether the petitioner had submitted the required documents. 35. With regard to the second ground for disqualifying the petitioner’s technical bid, it is seen that sub-Clause 12 of Clause 4 of the NIT has to be read with Clause 22 and 23 of the Buyer Added Bid Specific Terms and Conditions of the NIT, inasmuch as, sub-Clause 12 of Clause 4 is an added term in relation to Clause 22 & 23. Clause 22 & 23 are essential conditions of the tender, inasmuch as, the service and support for maintenance of the machines to be supplied, required the dedicated telephone numbers for service support of skilled & trained service engineers based in Assam. The petitioner has made a clarification, vide letter dated 24.02.2025, with respect to having a skilled & trained service Engineer, Mr. Jadav Tumung in Assam, which has been submitted after the last date of submission of the bid. The list of Engineers that has been submitted by the petitioner does not have any skilled & trained service engineer based in Assam. Further, Serial No.8 of the said list, i.e., Mr. Parthajit Sarma is also not a skilled & trained service engineer, but a senior Sales Executive, though the petitioner’s counsel had stated that Mr. Parthajit Sarma was a skilled & trained service engineer. Further, Serial No.8 of the said list, i.e., Mr. Parthajit Sarma is also not a skilled & trained service engineer, but a senior Sales Executive, though the petitioner’s counsel had stated that Mr. Parthajit Sarma was a skilled & trained service engineer. The same is apparent from a perusal of the particulars provided against the concerned person in the said list of engineers. The fact that the petitioner could not provide the name of any skilled & trained service engineer under the employment of the petitioner, who is based in Assam, clearly goes to show that sub-Clause 12 of Clause 4 of the NIT has not been complied with by the petitioner. As such, the ground No.2 for rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid does not suffer from any infirmity. 36. With regard to the third ground for rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid, i.e., the bidder did not submit past experience documents, this Court finds that the documents submitted by the petitioner only pertains to the supply of Cardiac Monitor which did not have the facility for Internal Defibrillation. On perusing the bid document, it is seen that the bidder is to supply Cardiac Monitor with Defibrillator (Q2). There is nothing reflected therein to show that the past experience of having a similar supply of products, required having the experience of having supplied Cardiac Monitor with the facility for Internal Defibrillation. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the third ground for disqualifying the petitioner’s technical bid may not be proper. 37. With regard to the bidder not having submitted a ‘U’ Certificate, the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner had applied for revalidation of the certificate, as the validity of the certificate had expired. However, the concerned certifying authority had held that the period between the application for revalidation of the certificate and the expiry of the old certificate, was to be treated as transition timeline, wherein the expired certificate was to be treated as deemed valid. With regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the issue would have to be decided by the author of the tender, after clarifying the same with the certifying authority. 38. With regard to the bidder not submitting the financial standing certificate, the relevant clause in the NIT, required the bidder to upload an undertaking to the effect that it was not under liquidation, court receivership or bankrupt. 38. With regard to the bidder not submitting the financial standing certificate, the relevant clause in the NIT, required the bidder to upload an undertaking to the effect that it was not under liquidation, court receivership or bankrupt. As the petitioner has submitted an undertaking to the said effect, the ground No.5 is also found to be arbitrary and not sustainable. 39. With regard to the ground No.6 that the bidder did not submit declaration on spare part availability, it is seen that the petitioner had submitted a list of spare parts. However, the said ground No.6 pertains to Clause 8 of the Special Terms and Conditions–Version:2 of the NIT, which states that the seller has to provide materials, information etc. pertaining to “spare parts manufactured and supplied by the OEM”. The emphasis to be given in Clause 8 is to the words “ pertaining to ”. As such, what is required is not only the list of spare parts, but the materials and information pertaining to the spare parts. On this score also, this Court does not find any infirmity with the decision of the Technical Committee, as the petitioner did not submit any information pertaining to the spare parts. 40. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Another, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 , the Supreme Court has held that an eligible bidder can point out the ineligibility of the ineligible bidder, which was not known to the employer. 41. The above judgment has been referred to in view of the fact that the submission of the respondent No.7, who is another bidder, has been taken into consideration by this Court, with regard to the alleged ineligibility of the petitioner, which was not considered by the State respondents in relation to ground No.1, though the Technical Committee had disqualified the petitioner’s bid on a slightly different ground in relation to ground No.1. 42. In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 , the Supreme Court has held that while rejecting the tender, the person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons, even if it be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that these decisions are neither judicial nor quasi judicial. The Supreme Court said that these decisions are neither judicial nor quasi judicial. However, if reasons are to be given at every stage, then the commercial activities of the State would come to a grinding halt. 43. In the present case, the reasons having been given by the State respondents, this Court is bound to see whether the decision making process for coming to those reasons by the Technical Committee, were justified or not. 44. In the case of N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors., reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 , the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. Just because the view of the Technical Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, the said decision does not warrant for any interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. As such, the Writ Courts should refrain from imposing it’s decision over the decision of the employer, as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Supreme Court in N.G. Projects Ltd.(supra), further held that the Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present-day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues, as there is a requirement of the necessary experts to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be, not to find fault with a magnifying glass in its hands. Rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process has been made after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a mala-fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender, but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion, rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. 45. In the present case, this Court having found no arbitrariness or infirmity with ground Nos. 45. In the present case, this Court having found no arbitrariness or infirmity with ground Nos. 2 & 6 made by the Technical Committee, in disqualifying the bid of the petitioner, this Court does not find any ground to exercise it’s discretion in the present case, especially when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the writ Courts should refrain from imposing it’s decision over the decision of the employer, as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. 46. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.