TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar Dubey, Ms. Anunaya Mehta, Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, Ms. Priya Dubey, Mr. Aryaman Tomer, Mr. Aryan Bhardwaj, Ms. Vaishnavi Prajapati, Mr. Vishal Kumar Malhotra, Mr. Gautam Yadav, Advs. For the Respondents: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh Chauhan, SPC. Ms. Parul Mehra, Adv. For the Intervenors: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dipanshu Gaba and Mr. Kunal Mittal, Advs. for Intervenor. Mr. Samrat Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Mittal and Mr. Shiv Dutt Kaushik, Advs. for Intervenor. Mr. Rajat Aneja, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sumant De, Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Shiv Dutt Kaushik and Mr. Mann Nankani, Advs. for Intervenor. JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. 1. As facts and issue(s) involved in all these petitions are common, which have been filed by the same petitioners, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondents herein are the Central Government Health Scheme ("CGHS") through its Director/ Joint Secretary/ Additional Secretary, DGHS and the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 3. The facts as noted from the record are that, on 18.03.2026, tenders were floated by South Zone, North Zone, Central Zone and East Zone of the CGHS for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f specifically defining the term 'commonly prescribed', the respondent has opened the possibility for any medicine claimed by the bidder to be commonly prescribed. 8. According to them, it is not possible to discern whether the requirement is to submit details of commonly prescribed 'medicines' marketed by any brand in each of the categories or commonly prescribed 'brands' of medicines in each of the categories. Therefore, the method adopted by the respondents to weed out uncompetitive and predatorily priced bids has created more confusion, vagueness, and lack of any objective, verifiable standard against which evaluation can take place. They concede that the petitioners have filed requisite information/supporting documents for the consideration of the respondents but no action has been taken by the respondents till date. 9. It is their submission that, any discount offered over and above 25% to 30% of the MRP is impossible and hence, predatory. They are within their rights to approach this Court even at this stage keeping in view the settled position of law by this Court in the case of E Trav Tech Limited v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 6844/2026 and connected petitions de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding maximum permissible discount thresholds (25%-33%) are self-serving and hypothetical. Market discounts vary significantly depending on bulk procurement contracts, direct manufacturer tie-ups, and institutional supply arrangements. The Financial Evaluation Committee (FEC) is fully empowered to scrutinize individual purchase invoices and commercial agreements submitted by bidders to test sustainability." 15. Mr. Chauhan stated that the petitioners having participated in the tender process and submitted the documents sought by the respondents without objection, cannot now challenge the very process undertaken in accordance with the tender conditions. He also stated that the only right available to a bidder is fair and non-discriminatory consideration of its bid. 16. He submitted that the response documents furnished by the petitioners shall be duly considered and evaluated by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender, applicable government procurement policies, rules and guidelines and other relevant provisions governing the procurement process. He also submitted that the respondents shall take appropriate decisions, in acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of 8 wellness centres. (ii) The petitioners were not declared H-1 for any of the CGHS Wellness Centres. (iii) On 24.07.2026, the respondent no. 1 sought a clarification from all technically-qualified bidders to provide a "Commercial justification for their quoted discounts". (iv) All technically-qualified bidders including the petitioners as well as the applicant(s) have filed their response to the said clarification. 22. In any case, it is his submission that the writ petitions are pre-mature as the impugned letter neither accepts nor rejects any bid. It merely seeks clarification and assailing the same is premature and speculative. He also submitted that the impugned letter is completely legal and within the mechanism provided in terms of the tender. Modifying and expanding the scope of terms/object/methodology of the clauses of the tender after failing to secure the contract is impermissible. 23. He highlighted that the petitioners have concealed material facts inasmuch as the bid corrigendum dated 03.04.2024 having details of the pre-bid meeting where questions were raised and clarifications sought by the petitioners themselves on the....