Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 14.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s Pro Health Scientific Pvt. Ltd (authorized signatory Mr. Manoj Kumar Dadge); Respondents – Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (Health & Medical Education Department), Jammu & Kashmir Medical Supplies Corporation Ltd (Head Officer, Managing Director, General Manager), and private respondent Maverick Simulation Solutions Ltd.
  • Tender Details: NIT No. NIT/JKMSCL/M&E/2025/655 dated 28‑02‑2025 for procurement of one “Anatomy Virtual Dissection Table”. Technical qualification required an average annual turnover of the Indian subsidiary of the principal manufacturer/sole importer of at least Rs 5 crore for FY 2021‑22, 2022‑23 and 2023‑24, certified by a Chartered Accountant with UDIN, together with audited balance sheets and profit‑and‑loss accounts for the same years.
  • Bid Evaluation: Technical Evaluation/Advisory Committee evaluated bids on 18‑08‑2025, identified deficiencies, and requested the petitioner to submit turnover for FY 2021‑22 and the audited balance sheet for that year. The petitioner was not recommended; Maverick Simulation Solutions Ltd was recommended (communication dated 21‑08‑2025).
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: Asserted that as a start‑up commencing operations in 2022 it could not provide FY 2021‑22 turnover and argued that because the bid submission deadline (extended to 26‑04‑2025) fell in FY 2025‑26, the turnover for FY 2024‑25 should be considered. Submitted turnover for FY 2022‑23, 2023‑24 and 2024‑25, claiming compliance with the Rs 5 crore threshold. Cited earlier tenders (JKMSCL/Mach/2024/611 dated 04‑01‑2024 and another dated 17‑05‑2023) where the authorities allegedly relaxed turnover years, and relied on the Government of India’s MSME circular dated 10‑03‑2016 for relaxation for start‑ups/MSMEs.
  • Respondents’ Arguments: Stated that the tender expressly required turnover for FY 2021‑22 to 2023‑24 and audited statements for those years; the petitioner submitted turnover for FY 2024‑25, which did not meet the mandatory condition, leading to rejection. Clarified that the 2016 MSME circular is merely advisory, has no statutory force, and does not bind the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. Noted that the petitioner is not registered as an MSME manufacturer or service provider, thus cannot claim any exemption.
  • Private Respondent’s Submission: Confirmed it is the direct importer of the machine from Anatomage Inc., USA, and reiterated that the turnover requirement was as per the tender. Mentioned that earlier tenders had inadvertent errors in the financial years cited, which were later rectified, not relaxed.
  • Legal Reasoning: The Court observed that a bidder failing to satisfy essential tender conditions is liable to be rejected (citing Silppi Construction Contractors Vs. Union Of India). Emphasised the principle of judicial restraint in commercial contracts and that courts should not rewrite tender terms under Article 226. Held that the 2016 MSME circular merely confers discretion on procuring entities and does not create an enforceable right for the petitioner. Noted that the petitioner, having been declared technically non‑responsive, cannot at this stage seek a direction to invoke the circular’s discretion.
  • Precedents Cited: Silppi Construction Contractors Vs. Union Of India (AIROnline 2019 SC 2430); Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, highlighting that judicial review in tender matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, or mala‑fides.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. The connected CM(s), if any, are also dismissed. No relief, including relaxation of turnover criteria or extension of bid opening date, is granted.

Topics: Tender Evaluation, MSME Policy, Public Procurement