Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of an earlier tender and the issuance of a fresh tender by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, for repair and maintenance of its Medical Gas Pipeline System (MGPS).HC upholds PGIMER’s fresh tender for medical gas pipeline maintenanceThe Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of an earlier tender and the issuance of a fresh tender by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, for the repair and maintenance of its Medical Gas Pipeline System (MGPS).A division bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur observed, “The modification is intended to broaden the pool of eligible bidders, promote healthy competition and prevent monopolistic pricing, without compromising the technical competence or experience required for the execution of the contract.”The petition was filed by M/s Shiv Engineers and Traders and others, contractors engaged in the repair and maintenance of manifold services and medical gas pipeline systems at PGIMER. They challenged the cancellation of the tender issued on Jan 16, 2026, and the subsequent issuance of a fresh tender on June 17, 2026.Under the earlier tender conditions, bidders were required to have at least five years of experience in providing repair and maintenance services for manifold services and medical gas pipeline systems in govt or reputed private hospitals with a minimum capacity of 500 beds.The petitioners contended that the revised tender conditions diluted the eligibility criteria by reducing the minimum hospital capacity requirement from 500 beds to 300 beds and replacing the requirement of experience in manifold rooms and medical gas pipeline systems with experience in any part of medical gas pipeline systems.They added that the changes had been made to favour respondent number six. They also challenged the newly introduced condition requiring bidders to submit valid service authorisation from Ingersoll Rand and Trident Pneumatics, arguing that it was restrictive and conferred an undue advantage on respondent number six while denying other eligible bidders a level playing field.Opposing the petition, PGIMER and the other respondents submitted that the petitioners alone had been providing annual maintenance contract services for the Medical Gas Pipeline System at PGIMER for the past 20 years and that there had been no competing bidder. They stated that fresh conditions relating to similar works were incorporated to ensure wider participation and eliminate ambiguity, while the minimum bed requirement was reduced from 500 to 300.The respondents also justified the manufacturer authorisation requirement, saying that most of the critical equipment installed at PGIMER belonged to the two specified manufacturers.The bench held that the committee had found the petitioners’ interpretation of the earlier experience requirement to be narrow and restrictive.“The petitioners have contended in their representation that the respondent no. 6 did not possess five years’ experience in each of the aforesaid services. However, the Committee found that the eligibility criteria did not expressly stipulate separate five years’ experience requirement for each individual service,” the court observed.It further held that reducing the threshold to 300 beds, while retaining the requirement of experience in handling multiple medical gas services, widened the scope for participation without diluting essential technical standards.The HC also rejected the petitioners’ challenge to the cancellation of the earlier tender, observing, “In the present case, no vested right has accrued in favour of the petitioners and process never ripened into a concluded contract. Until a bid is accepted, there is no binding contract, and the respondents were, therefore at liberty to cancel the notice inviting tender.”On the manufacturer authorisation condition, the bench observed that there was a rationale behind incorporating the clause, as the majority of critical equipment installed in the medical gas manifold system was manufactured by the two specified manufacturers.Finding no ground for interference, the High Court dismissed the petition and disposed of all pending applications.
