Patna High Court – Orders
M/S Paras Medicos vs The Union Of India on 13 July, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9936 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Paras Medicos, A Proprietorship Firm Having its Registered Office
situated at Shokhanda Complex, Gohna Road, Police Station-Sector 12,
Sonipat, District - Sonipat (Haryana) through its Proprietor Naveen Jain, aged
about 51 years (male), Son of Jagdish Parshad Jain, Resident of House No.
2379, Sector 15, Near Huda Office, Sector-15, Police Station - Sonipat,
District - Sonipat (Haryana).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India Through the Secretary, The Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation, through its Chairman Having its Registered
Office at Indian Oil Bhavan, G- 9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin Code 400051 and Corporate Office at Plot 3079/3,
Sadiq Nagar, JB Tito Marg, New Delhi-110049.
3. The Chairman, The Indian Oil Corporation, Having its Registered Office at
Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai,
Maharastra, Pin Code 400051 and Corporate Office at Plot 3079/3, Sadiq
Nagar, J B Tito Marg, New Delhi- 110049.
4. The Director (Refineries) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Scope Complex
Core 27, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
5. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited Barauni Refinery, through its Executive
Director, P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinery, District - Begusarai (Bihar).
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Additional Solicitor General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 13-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The following reliefs have been sought by the
petitioner in the present writ application:-
“1 (i) Issuance of an appropriate writ, order
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
2/13or direction, more particularly a writ in the
nature of Certiorari, for quashing and setting
aside the proposed Quality-cum-Cost Based
Selection (QCBS) Evaluation Parameters
dated 12.05.2026, forming part of Bid No
GEM/2026/B/7628926 dated 05.06.2026, to
the extent they prescribe the evaluation
criteria contained in Clause 3(a), Clause
3(b), Clause 3(d), Clause 3(e), Clause 3(f)
(iii) and Clause 7, as being arbitrary
discriminatory, irrational, manifestly
unreasonable tailor-made, violative of
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India, and consequently, unconstitutional
and unenforceable;
(ii) Issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction declaring that the impugned
evaluation parameters, namely, allocation of
marks on the basis of (a) Average Annual
Turnover, (b) Number of Years in Operation,
(d) Number of Physical Outlets, (e) Pan-
India Presence, (f)(iii) Employment of more
than twenty registered pharmacists on the
direct payroll, and the minimum qualifying
benchmark prescribed under Clause 7, have
no rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved, namely, efficient operation of
pharmacy services at Bihar, and are
therefore, liable to be struck down as
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India 1950;
(iii) Issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction declaring that the cumulative effect
of the aforesaid impugned clauses creates an
unreasonable and artificial classification in
favour of large corporate pharmacy chains,
excludes and prevents otherwise competent
local and regional pharmacy operators from
effective participation in the tender process.
destroys the constitutional requirement of a
level playing field in public procurement and
imposes an unreasonable restriction upon the
Petitioner’s fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
3/13
India, 1950;
(iv) Issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to suitably modify, revise and
reframe the impugned evaluation criteria
contained in the proposed QCBS Evaluation
Parameters dated 12.05.2026 so as to ensure
that the quality evaluation is based upon
objective parameters having a direct nexus
with the efficient management and operation
of hospital pharmacy services, without
conferring an arbitrary or disproportionate
advantage upon bidders merely on account of
their financial size, geographical spread,
market dominance or historical existence;
(v) Issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the Respondents to
undertake a fresh evaluation process after
reformulating the quality parameters in a fair
transparent, reasonable, non-discriminatory
and constitutionally compliant manner,
thereby ensuring equal opportunity and a
level playing field to all eligible bidders;
(vi) Pending admission and final disposal of
the present writ petition, stay the operation,
implementation and further proceedings
pursuant to the proposed QCBS Evaluation
Parameters dated 12.05.2026 forming part of
Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7628926 dated
05.06.2026, insofar as they relate to or are
founded upon the impugned Clauses 3(a),
3(b), 3(d), 3(e), 3(f)(iii) and Clause 7, and
further restrain the Respondents from
opening, evaluating or finalising the
technical or financial bids on the basis of the
impugned evaluation criteria;
(vii) Pending disposal of the writ petition,
direct the Respondents not to issue any Letter
of Acceptance, Work Order or Award of
Contract pursuant to Bid No
GEM/2026/B/7628926 dated 05.06.2026
until the constitutional validity of the
impugned evaluation parameters is finally
adjudicated by this Hon’ble Court;
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
4/13
(viii) Issuance of an appropriate writ, order
or direction, more particularly a writ in the
nature of Certiorari for calling for the entire
records pertaining to the deliberations,
proceedings, recommendations and decision
of the Tender Evaluation Committee
culminating in its decision dated 12.05.2026
whereby the impugned Quality-cum-Cost
Based Selection (QCBS) Evaluation
Parameters for Pharmacy Services at
Barauni Refineries were formulated and
recommended for incorporation in Bid No.
GEM/2026/B/7628926 dated 05.06.2026,
and upon examination thereof, be pleased to
quash and set aside the said decision and
recommendation, being arbitrary, irrational,
unsupported by any objective study,
empirical material or intelligible criteria,
suffering from non-application of mind, and
consequently violative of Articles 14 and
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950;
(ix) Issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction declaring that the decision of the
Tender Evaluation Committee dated
12.05.2026, in so far as it recommends and
approves the allocation of marks under
Clause 3(a), Clause 3(b), Clause 3(d).
Clause 3(e), Clause 3(f) (iii) and Clause 7 of
the proposed QCBS Evaluation Parameters,
is arbitrary, discriminatory, manifestly
unreasonable. disproportionate and
constitutionally unsustainable, inasmuch as
the said criteria have no rational nexus with
the object of selecting the most competent
agency for operation of pharmacy services at
BRH and instead confer an unjustified and
disproportionate advantage upon a limited
class of large corporate pharmacy chains;
(x) Issuance an appropriate writ in the nature
of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
place before this Hon’ble Court the complete
records relating to the formulation of the
impugned evaluation matrix, including but
not limited to the agenda notes, comparative
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
5/13
statements, feasibility studies, market
surveys, expert opinions, minutes of
meetings, file notings, recommendations,
approvals and all materials relied upon by
the Tender Evaluation Committee while
arriving at its decision dated 12.05.2026, to
enable this Hon’ble Court to examine
whether the impugned evaluation criteria are
founded upon any objective material and
satisfy the constitutional requirement of
fairness, reasonableness and non-
arbitrariness;
(xi) Issuance an appropriate writ, order or
direction declaring that the Respondents
have acted arbitrarily in adopting the
impugned evaluation parameters without
undertaking any objective assessment as to
whether the criteria relating to turnover,
years of operation, number of physical
outlets, Pan-India presence and the
requirement of more than twenty pharmacists
bear any direct, proximate or rational nexus
with the efficient operation of a single
hospital pharmacy, and consequently hold
that the decision-making process itself stands
vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and
failure to consider relevant factors;
(xii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the Respondents to
disclose before this Hon’ble Court the
empirical data, expert reports, comparative
studies, market analysis, policy papers or
other objective material, if any, on the basis
of which the Tender Evaluation Committee
concluded that higher turnover, longer years
of operation, larger geographical presence,
greater number of physical outlets and
maintenance of more than twenty registered
pharmacists constitute valid indicators of
quality for the operation of pharmacy
services at Bihar, failing which the impugned
decision dated 12.05.2026 and the
consequential tender conditions be declared
arbitrary and liable to be quashed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
6/13
(xiii) Pass such other or further writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case in the
interest of justice.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is
the proprietor of M/s Paras Medicos and claims to possess all
the requisite statutory licences and infrastructure for operating a
hospital pharmacy. It is alleged that, despite fulfilling the
eligibility conditions, the petitioner is unable to secure the
qualifying technical score as certain evaluation parameters,
being arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, primarily
award marks on the basis of turnover, nationwide presence,
number of outlets and permanent pharmacists. Thus, the
petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the Tender
Evaluation Committee dated 12.05.2026 recommending the
impugned evaluation parameters and the consequential
incorporation thereof in Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7628926 dated
05.06.2026, has preferred the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare
reading of impugned evaluation matrix demonstrates that
substantial weightage has been assigned to factors such as high
annual turnover, longevity of business, number of physical
outlets, geographical presence across multiple states and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
7/13
maintenance of large workforce of pharmacists while little
emphasis has been placed upon the actual capability of a bidder.
However, the respondents have neither disclosed in the tender
documents nor otherwise placed in the public domain any expert
study, technical report, market assessment, empirical analysis or
objective material demonstrating the basis upon which the
Tender Evaluation Committee concluded that the impugned
parameters are appropriate indicators. Learned counsel further
submits that solely because the petitioner does not possess
turnover exceeding Rs. 500 Crore, nationwide presence,
multiple physical outlets and more than twenty pharmacists on
payment payroll, the petitioner is rendered incapable of
obtaining qualifying technical score prescribed under Clause 7.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
evaluation parameters are reasonable, justified, and non-
discriminatory in nature. It is submitted that the tendering
authority, being the expert body, is best placed to assess its
requirements and to determine the eligibility criteria necessary
for the effective execution of the services in question. Learned
counsels further submit that the parameters have been framed
after due consideration and are neither arbitrary nor vitiated by
any favoritism towards any selected categories of entrants.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
8/13
Moreover, it is pointed out that the eligibility criteria have been
formulated solely in furtherance of public interest, with the
object of ensuring efficient and reliable service delivery, and not
to serve individual interest of any person.
6. The limited question that arises for consideration is
whether it is the prerogative of the authority issuing the tender
to prescribe the evaluation parameters/criteria thereof.
7. Upon perusal of the materials available on record
and considering the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner
has challenged the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee
dated 12.05.2026 recommending the impugned technical
evaluation parameters and the consequential incorporation
thereof in Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7628926 dated 05.06.2026,
primarily on the ground that the said parameters are arbitrary,
unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
8. However, upon consideration of the materials
brought on record, this Court finds that the impugned evaluation
parameters, which assign weightage to factors such as annual
turnover, geographical presence, number of outlets, experience
and availability of permanent pharmacists, cannot, by
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
9/13
themselves, be construed as indicative of arbitrariness, bias or
favouritism. Rather, it appears that the said parameters have
been prescribed by the tendering authority keeping in view the
nature, scope and operational requirements of running a hospital
pharmacy so as to ensure efficient, uninterrupted and quality
service delivery. The tendering authority, being the author of the
tender document and the best judge of its requirements, is the
best person to understand its functional needs and to determine
the appropriate eligibility criteria for ensuring proper execution
of the work. In this regard, it is relevant to take note of the
decision of Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics
Ltd., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 19, wherein Division Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:
“11. This principle was again restated
by this Court in Monarch Infrastructure (P)
Ltd. v. Commr., Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corpn. [(2000) 5 SCC 287] It was held that
the terms and conditions in the tender are
prescribed by the Government bearing in
mind the nature of contract and in such mat-
ters the authority calling for the tender is the
best judge to prescribe the terms and condi-
tions of the tender. ….
12. It has clearly been held in these de-
cisions that the terms of the invitation to ten-
der are not open to judicial scrutiny, the
same being in the realm of contract. That the
Government must have a free hand in setting
the terms of the tender. It must have reason-
able play in its joints as a necessary con-
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
10/13comitant for an administrative body in an ad-
ministrative sphere. The courts would inter-
fere with the administrative policy decision
only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala
fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to prag-
matic adjustments which may be called for by
the particular circumstances. The courts can-
not strike down the terms of the tender pre-
scribed by the Government because it feels
that some other terms in the tender would
have been fair, wiser or logical. The courts
can interfere only if the policy decision is ar-
bitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.”
9. Similarly, in the case of Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., reported in (2016) 16
SCC 818, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:
“15. We may add that the owner
or the employer of a project, having
authored the tender documents, is the best
person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents.
The constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the
tender documents, unless there is mala fide
or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the
terms of the tender conditions. It is possible
that the owner or employer of a project may
give an interpretation to the tender
documents that is not acceptable to the
constitutional courts but that by itself is not
a reason for interfering with the
interpretation given.”
10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, reported in (2007) 14 SCC
517, while explaining the scope of judicial review in tender
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
11/13
matters, observed as follows:
“22. Judicial review of
administrative action is intended to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its
purpose is to check whether choice or
decision is made “lawfully” and not to check
whether choice or decision is “sound”. When
the power of judicial review is invoked in
matters relating to tenders or award of
contracts, certain special features should be
borne in mind. A contract is a commercial
transaction. Evaluating tenders and
awarding contracts are essentially
commercial functions. Principles of equity
and natural justice stay at a distance. If the
decision relating to award of contract is bona
fide and is in public interest, courts will not,
in exercise of power of judicial review,
interfere even if a procedural aberration or
error in assessment or prejudice to a
tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial
review will not be permitted to be invoked to
protect private interest at the cost of public
interest, or to decide contractual disputes.
…….”
11. Similarly, in the case of Uflex Ltd. v. State of T.N.,
reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that:
“47. Insofar as the participating
entities are concerned, it cannot be
contended that all and sundry should be
permitted to participate in matters of this
nature. In fact, in every tender there are
certain qualifying parameters whether it be
technology or turnover. The Court cannot sit
over in judgment on what should be the
turnover required for an entity to participate.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
12/13……….”
12. In light of the foregoing discussions and settled
position of law, this Court is of the view that the issue before us
for consideration is to be answered in the affirmative. In such
matters, the tendering authority is most suitably placed to assess
its requirements, and the Court must not substitute its view for
that. Further, it is well settled that the nature of works and
services undertaken through tender processes varies from case
to case. In the present case, having regard to the nature, scope,
and requirements of the work involved, it cannot be said that the
evaluation parameters prescribed in the tender notice are
arbitrary or unreasonable. Owing to such variation in works and
services, it is neither feasible nor desirable to prescribe any rigid
or strait-jacket formula for laying down evaluation
parameters/eligibility criteria. The authority inviting the tender
is required to frame such evaluation parameters/conditions
keeping in view the specific requirements, scope, and
complexities of the work involved. Consequently, each tender
must necessarily be examined on the touchstone of its own facts
and circumstances.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled
legal position, we find no substance in the challenge raised by
Patna High Court CWJC No.9936 of 2026(2) dt.13-07-2026
13/13
the petitioner.
14. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U.K./-Nitesh
U
