M/S JOHNSON AND SMITH CO v. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN C

Judgment

#1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

#1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Award of Contract / Acceptance of Bids bearing No.NIMH/HSS/PU- 1(DRUGS)2026-27/21 in so far as it pertains to drug code 430-Liq Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 5 % 5ltr

04.06.2026, HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 - placing the petitioner at L2 and respondent no. 5 at L1 produced as Annexure H.

#2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the respondents to re-evaluate the bids for Drug Code 430 on a per-litre basis as mandated by Clause 5.3.2 of the Tender Notification, and to declare the petitioner as the L1 bidder accordingly, and the Rate Contract/work order in favour of the Petitioner for the said drug code 430

#3. Award costs of the petition to the petitioner.

#4. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

#2. Respondent No.1-the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (“NIMHANS”), an Institute of National Importance functioning under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, issued Tender Notification No. NIMH/PU-I(D)/TENDER/RC-I (26-28)/01/2025-26, CPPP Tender ID: 2026_NIMHN_894339 dated

12.02.2026, inviting bids for the supply of various drugs, chemicals, IV fluids and miscellaneous items required for the NIMHANS Hospital for a period of twenty-four months from the date of issuance of the Rate Contract, with effect from 01.04.2026. The tender notification was issued exclusively through the CPPP e-procurement portal. A pre-bid meeting was HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 on 27.01.2026, during which certain clarifications were issued to prospective bidders. According to the petitioner, it was specifically clarified that, for products with a package size of one litre or more, the rates were required to be quoted on a per- litre basis.

#3. In this regard, Sri. Bhargava.D. Bhat., learned counsel for the petitioner relies on and refers to;

3.1. Clause 5.3.2 of the tender document, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

5.3.2 Tenders must submit their quotations item wise i.e., per tablet, litre, capsule, etc. not as per packing size as has been asked appropriately in the tender.

3.2. By relying on Clause 5.3.2, his submission is that the tenderer must submit their quotation item-wise, i.e., per tablet, litre, capsule, etc., and not as per the packing size indicated in the tender. Therefore, his submission is that, as the subject matter of the present writ petition is Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 5%, any quote had to be per litre only, irrespective of the packing.

3.3. He also relies on Clause 5.3.7, 5.7.1 and 23.2 of the tender document, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026

5.3.7. No bidder shall be allowed at any time on any ground whatsoever to claim revision of or modification in the rates quoted by him. Clerical etc. committed by the bidders in the tender forms shall not be considered after opening di the tenders. typographical error,

5.7.1. The tenderer, will not be allowed to make any alterations/modifications to bids received after the prescribed time period.

23.2. No change/ alteration on plea of clerical or typographical error in rates or other terms in tender will be permitted under any circumstances.

3.4. Relying upon the aforesaid clauses, contended that the tender conditions expressly prohibit any revision, modification or alteration of a bid after its submission, irrespective of whether such request is founded upon a clerical error, typographical error or any other similar ground. According to him, the petitioner quoted a basic price of Rs.144/- with applicable taxes of Rs.25.92/-, aggregating to Rs.169.92 per litre for Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 5%, and was accordingly declared as the L1 bidder.

3.5. It is submitted that Respondent No.5 quoted a basic price of Rs.375/- with taxes of Rs.67.50/-, aggregating Rs.442.50, consequently ranked as L2. Learned counsel therefore contends that, once the financial bids HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 were opened and the petitioner was declared as the L1 bidder, the contract ought to have been awarded to the petitioner. However, acting upon a clarification allegedly furnished Respondent No.5 through an email dated

27.04.2026 at 4:48 p.m., after the bids had been closed and opened at 12:37 p.m. on the same day, the Tender Evaluation Committee, in its meeting held on 07.05.2026 at 4:00 p.m., directed that Respondent No.5 be treated as the L1 bidder, thereby depriving the petitioner of the award of the contract.

3.6. It is further contended that no clarification relating to the financial bid could either have been sought by the Tender Evaluation Authority or voluntarily furnished by Respondent No.5 after the opening of the financial bids. Even assuming that such a clarification had been submitted, the Tender Evaluation Authority could not have consideration to the prejudice of the petitioner.

3.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v. HC-KAR - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 Mandeepa Enterprises, 1 more particularly para nos. 8, 9, 14, 16, 35, 37, 38.1 and 49 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference; crores, security was

#8. The contract period is for 1095 days. While the annual potential collection was pegged at the earnest money Rs 21.60 deposit/bid fixed at Rs 25,00,000.00. As per Clause 2 of the notice inviting electronic bid, there would be two bids: technical bid and financial bid, both of submitted which would concurrently duly digitally signed website of the West Bengal Government. Clause 3 mentioned that the rates should be quoted both in words and in figures in specific format i.e. BOQ. In case of any discrepancy between words and figures, the rate quoted in words would be treated as the actual rate offered. After bidding, the selected bidder will be the H1 bidder who will offer the highest remittance for the contract period and will make necessary agreement with the condition that the accepted bid amount over the stipulated period will have to be deposited in advance as per the payment schedule to the government account in lieu of RUF collection right.

#9. Clause 4 lays down the eligibility criteria for participation in the Bid. Clause 4(g) is very specific. It says that any change in the template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances. Clause 4(g) reads thus: Any change in template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances. 1 (2026) 4 SCC 310 HC-KAR - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 forty-eight hours after 14. Accordingly, declaration of technical evaluation, financial bids of the four technically qualified bidders were opened electronically as per the e-tender mechanism. On such opening, it was found that the appellant Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited was the highest bidder with the quoted amount of Rs 91,19,00,000.00 (for 1095 days). It was also found that Respondent 1 was the lowest bidder (H4) at the offered amount of Rs 9,72,999.00. Details of financial bid evaluation are as under: BOQ Summary Details Tender Title: WBPWD/PW(R)/SEPD/PIU-I/NIB-07 OF 2023-24, SI-3 TENDER ID: 2023_WBPWD_595358_3 Sheet Name SI. No. Bidder Name Amount Bid Rank BoQ1 1. Prakash Asphaltings Toll 91,19,00,000.00 H1 Highways India Ltd.

#2. Eagle Infra India Ltd.

#3. Ainul Hoque

#4. Mandeepa Enterprises 78,38,99,999.00 H2 65,21,76,525.00 H3 9,72,999.00 H4

#16. After the financial bids were opened and became public, Respondent 1 made a request to the tender committee vide e-mail dated 13- 12-2023. The e-mail was accompanied by an affidavit stating that the amount offered was per day rate and that the said figure should be worked out for the total contract period of 1095 days in which event, the offer of Respondent Rs 1,06,54,33,905.00 for the contract period. The tendering authority was requested to treat the figure of Rs 9,72,999.00 as a typographical error and the figure offered by Respondent 1 should be read as 1,06,54,33,905.00. The authority was further requested to consider the same keeping higher revenue in mind. 1 would HC-KAR - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026

#35. The Division Bench of the High Court has interpreted this clause in a broad way to include rectification of bona fide mistakes in quoting BOQ rates by the bidders. In our view, this will be stretching things a bit too far. This provision is meant to empower the notice inviting authority to seek clarification or further information regarding any document filed by a bidder. This cannot be interpreted so broadly as to include rectification of the BOQ rates which is governed by Clause 4(g) of the notice inviting electronic bid putting a complete embargo to any change in the template of BOQ; the prohibition is specific: change in the template of BOQ will not be accepted under any circumstances. is that

#37. Therefore, though the contention of Respondent 1 it had made an inadvertent mistake in quoting the BOQ rate of per day figure instead of the total contract period of 1095 days, a closer scrutiny would, however, belie such contention. In Columns 5, 6 and 7, Respondent 1 filled up the amount in figures and words as Rs 9,72,999.00 and Rupees nine lakhs seventy-two thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine, respectively, for 1095 days. In such circumstances, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent or unintentional mistake, as is being contended on behalf of Respondent 1. Therefore, allowing Respondent 1 to rectify such mistakes after finalisation of the financial bid would be highly improper as it would have the effect of unsettling the entire tender process.

38.1. This Court in Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. [W.B. SEB v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 451] also held that tenders are invited on the basis of competitive bidding. On the one hand, it offers a fair opportunity to all those who are interested in competing for the contract and on the other hand, it affords the authority a choice to select the best of competitors on a HC-KAR - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 competitive price without prejudice to the quality of the work. Above all, it eliminates favouritism and discrimination in allotting public works to contractors. While benefit to the public exchequer is certainly an important criteria in award of contract, it is equally in public interest to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited.

#49. The expression “public interest” in the arena of commercial transactions cannot and should not be confined to any straitjacket definition. While benefit or accrual of more revenue to the public exchequer is certainly an important aspect, equally important, if not more, is adherence to the rules and conditions of tender; sanctity of the tender process being paramount and should be maintained at all cost.

3.8. By relying on Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. case,1 the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the financial bids are opened and become public, no request by any bidder seeking clarification or correction of financial bid can thereafter be entertained by the Tender Evaluation Authority.

3.9. In the said case, the contract related to toll collection rights for a period of 1095 days. The appellant therein had submitted the highest bid of Rs.91,19,00,000/-, whereas Mandeepa Enterprises had quoted only Rs.9,72,999/- and HC-KAR - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 was ranked the lowest bidder. After the financial bids were opened, Mandeepa Enterprises sought to clarify that the amount quoted represented the rate for a single day and not for the entire contract period of 1095 days. It requested that the quoted amount be multiplied by 1095, thereby resulting in a total bid value of Rs.1,06,54,33,905/-, which would make it the highest bidder.

3.10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the said contention and held that even a bona fide mistake in quoting the BOQ rates cannot be permitted to be rectified after the opening of the financial bids. It was held that strict adherence terms and conditions governing the tender process is imperative and that inadvertent errors or mistakes committed by a bidder cannot be permitted to alter the outcome of the tender evaluation.

3.11. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that, in matters relating to public contracts, the expression "public interest" is not confined merely to securing higher revenue for the public exchequer. Equally, if not more HC-KAR - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 important, requirement of strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the tender, the sanctity of the tender process being paramount.

3.12. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, it is contended that the clarification furnished by Respondent No.5 after the opening of the financial bids could neither have been entertained nor acted upon by Respondent No.1. The consequential re-ranking Respondent No.5 as L1 and the petitioner as L2 is, therefore, contrary to the tender conditions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that, while the issue in Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways (India) Ltd.1 involved multiplication of the quoted amount to arrive at the total bid value, the present case involves division of the amount quoted by Respondent No.5, namely Rs.442.50, by five in order to determine the rate per litre. According to learned counsel, the underlying principle remains identical, namely, that no post-bid clarification or correction affecting the quoted financial bid can be permitted after the bids have been opened. HC-KAR - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 Consequently, the decision in Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways (India) Ltd.1 applies in full force, and the decision of NIMHANS treating Respondent No.5 as the L1 bidder is liable to be set aside, with a consequential direction to award the contract to the petitioner.

#4. Sri. Madusudhan Rao., learned counsel appearing for the NIMHANS would submit that;

4.1. Respondent No.5 had committed a genuine and bona fide mistake while submitting its financial bid. According to him, the tender document itself contains an apparent inconsistency. While Clause 5.3.2 stipulates that quotations are to be submitted item-wise, namely, per tablet, litre, capsule, etc., Clause 8.1 of the tender document requires the tenderer to quote for the packing specified against each item in the schedule annexed to the rate enquiry and further provides that no other packing would be accepted. It also provides that, where no packing is specified, the tenderer may quote for the standard pack available in the market.

4.2. Learned counsel submits that, in the present case, the schedule specifically prescribed a HC-KAR - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 packing size of five litres. Respondent No.5, therefore, quoted its price for a five-litre pack. Consequently, according to him, no fault can be attributed to Respondent No.5 in submitting its quotation on that basis. He further submits that there has been no alteration whatsoever to the rate quoted by Respondent No.5. The quoted price has throughout remained Rs.442.50 for a five-litre pack. The only exercise undertaken by the Tender Evaluation Committee was ascertain the equivalent rate per litre by a simple mathematical division, namely, Rs.442.50 divided by five, resulting in a per- litre rate of Rs.88.50.

4.3. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the effective rate quoted by Respondent No.5 is Rs.88.50 per litre, whereas the petitioner has quoted Rs.169.92 per litre, which is almost twice the rate quoted by Respondent No.5.

4.4. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1, being the procuring authority, is duty-bound to safeguard public funds. If the petitioner's quotation were accepted, NIMHANS would be compelled to procure the product at nearly double the price quoted by Respondent No.5. HC-KAR - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 According to him, the estimated requirement is 86,150 units during the contract period. At the rate quoted by Respondent No.5, the total expenditure approximately Rs.3,23,06,250/-. On the other hand, if the petitioner's quoted rate of Rs.169.92 per litre is taken into consideration, the price would first have to be reckoned litres and thereafter multiplied by the required quantity, amounting to Rs. 7,31,93,040 resulting in substantially higher expenditure of Rs. 4,08,86,790.

4.5. Learned counsel therefore submits acceptance of the petitioner's bid would impose additional financial burden of Rs. 4,08,86,790 upon NIMHANS, which, according to him, the Institute can ill afford. He further submits that NIMHANS, being a premier public healthcare institution, is required to procure quality medicines at the most competitive prices so as to ensure optimum utilisation of public resources for the benefit of its patients. Incurring an avoidable expenditure Rs. 4,08,86,790 over a period of two years, according to him, would be contrary to public HC-KAR - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 interest and would adversely affect both the institution and the patients who depend upon its services., since it is those patients who would have to be billed accordingly requiring them to make such payment.

4.6. In this context, learned counsel submits that the decision of the Tender Inviting Authority and the Tender Evaluation Committee deserves considerable deference, particularly in matters involving technical and commercial evaluation.

4.7. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Steag Energy Services (India) (P) Ltd. v. GSPC Pipavav Power Co. Ltd.2 more particularly para nos.19, 20, 24 and 26 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

#19. Mr. D.V.S. Somayajulu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, relied on the decision of this Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.[(2016) 16 SCC 818] to submit that the High Court committed a serious error in interfering with the decision, particularly when the difference between the appellant and the writ petitioner is marginally higher. The relevant portions of this precedent are as follows: “11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) [Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 106 : (2016) 8 Scale 99] it 2 2026 SCC Online SC 478 HC-KAR - 17 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision-making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision- making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision-making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us. (…)

#13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision.” intention reason is no fides,

#20. In similar circumstances, while considering the scope of judicial review, this Court in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd.[(2016) 15 SCC 272], expressed a word of caution emphasising that judicial review should be confined to ensuring that there is no arbitrariness or mala fide in the process of evaluation. The relevant portions of the judgement are reproduced below: “26. We respectfully concur with the aforesaid statement of law. We have reasons to do so. In the present scenario, tenders are floated and offers are invited for highly complex technical subjects. It requires understanding and appreciation of the nature of work and the purpose it is going to serve. It the competitive commercial field that technical bids pursuant to the inviting tenders are scrutinized by the notice third party technical experts and sometimes assistance from those unconnected with the owner's is common knowledge HC-KAR - 18 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 is taken. This ensures objectivity. organization Bidder's expertise and technical capability and capacity must be assessed by the experts. In the matters of financial assessment, consultants are appointed. It is because to check and ascertain that technical ability and the financial feasibility have sanguinity and are workable and realistic. There is a multi-prong complex approach; highly technical in nature. The tenders where public largesse is put to auction stand on a different compartment. Tender with which we are concerned, is not comparable to any scheme for allotment. This arena which we have referred requires technical expertise. Parameters applied are different. Its aim is to achieve high degree of perfection in execution and adherence to the time schedule. But, that does not mean, these tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review. Exercise of power of judicial review would be called for if the approach is arbitrary or malafide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one. The decision making process should clearly show that the said maladies are kept at bay. But where a decision is taken that is manifestly in Page 29 29 consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible. The principle that is to scan and understand an ordinary applied instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in the joints.”

#24. It is rather strange that in the whole process of judicial Scrutiny the contesting contractors as well as the Court lost sight of the needs and requirements of the Owner. It is not uncommon that when judicial review proceedings are invoked by one or the other parties the entire focus of the court is in choosing the most eligible party. This enquiry is necessary, however judicial review courts cannot ignore the needs of the owner(s), the speed at which they to be would want the appropriate contractor HC-KAR - 19 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 identified and other considerations that weigh in their endeavour. Let's take this very case, GPPC floated the tender way back in January 2025 and LOA itself was granted on 09.06.2025 from which date more than a year has already passed. Who is to account for the delay in the execution of the contract and commencement of the work?

#26. The final choice is of the owner, and it is for the owner to take the final decision with necessary flexibility and pragmatism. While exercising judicial review of contractual matters, constitutional courts do not exercise, should not exercise ex-ante jurisdiction to pre-empt executive actions. On this count, High Court has exceeded the first principle of judicial restraint in contractual matters.

4.8. By relying on Steag Energy Services (India) (P) Ltd. case,2 his submission is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the ultimate choice of the successful bidder rests with the owner or procuring authority, which is entitled to exercise the necessary flexibility and pragmatism in commercial matters. The doctrine of "free play in the joints" recognises that the owner is best placed to assess its own requirements and evaluate competing bids. He submits that, in the present case, the Tender Evaluation Committee, consisting of nineteen experts, in its meeting held on 07.05.2026, examined the issue in detail and unanimously concluded Respondent No.5 ought to be treated as the L1 bidder. Such a decision, according to him, does HC-KAR - 20 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 not warrant interference in the exercise of judicial review.

4.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Conservator of Forest v. Suresh Mathew,3 more particularly para 16 and 17 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

#16. The question of scope of judicial review in the cases of award of contracts has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517] wherein the Court observed as under: in mind. A contract to prevent arbitrariness, “22. Judicial review of administrative action is irrationality, intended 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 is a commercial tenders and awarding transaction. Evaluating contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bonafide 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. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 933 HC-KAR - 21 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. 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 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. (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of licenses, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” sites/shops, grant of We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a gross error while observing the facts in the case of Jagdish Mandal (supra) were entirely different in regard to a defective tender submitted by a participant. ORDER i. ii. The Writ Petition is dismissed. The impugned contract/acceptance

04.06.2026, bearing No.NIMH/HSS/PU- 1(DRUGS)2026-27/21, insofar pertains to drug code 430-Liq Sodium Hypochlorite Solution 5% 5Ltr, placing HC-KAR - 87 - NC: 2026:KHC:38124 WP No. 18066 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010403282026 Respondent No.5 at L1 and the petitioner at L2, is upheld. iii. Any interim order subsisting shall stand vacated, and all pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1