High Court upholds Expert Committee’s Scrutiny of Robotic Surgery Stapler, Rejects bid for Non-Compliance

Shimla, Feb 1

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has upheld the decision of a Technical Committee to reject a bid for the installation of robotic surgery machinery, emphasizing that the use of a stapler in robotic surgery must be thoroughly scrutinized by experts and demonstrated on human beings before a tender can be finalized. The court ruled that the decision-making process in the tender was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and thus, there was no ground for judicial interference.

The case, *Sudhir Srivastava Innovations Pvt Ltd vs The Directorate of Medical Education & Ors*, revolved around a tender issued by the Directorate of Medical Education for the installation of robotic surgery machinery at two medical institutions in Himachal Pradesh: the Atal Institute of Medical Super Speciality in Shimla and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical College in Tanda. The petitioner, Sudhir Srivastava Innovations Pvt Ltd, had participated in the tender but was disqualified after the Technical Committee found that the robotic system demonstrated by the company did not meet the required specifications, particularly regarding the use of staplers.

The court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, noted that the Technical Committee had conducted an inspection and found that the robotic system demonstrated by the petitioner at the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute did not show the use of staplers, which was a critical requirement under the tender specifications. The petitioner had demonstrated only one stapler at its factory in Gurugram, which was still in the developmental stage and lacked the necessary articulation of up to 120 degrees, as mandated by the tender. Additionally, the stapler was demonstrated on animal tissues, and its use on human beings was not exhibited, leading the committee to conclude that it was not advisable to approve the system in its current state.

The petitioner had challenged the rejection of its technical bid, arguing that it had demonstrated the use of the machine during a gynecological procedure at the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, which did not require the use of staplers. The petitioner also claimed that it had invited the Technical Committee to observe the stapler’s functionality on animal tissues in its laboratory. However, the court found that the petitioner had admitted in its own communication that the use of the stapler was not demonstrated to the committee, and the findings of the Technical Committee were not in dispute.

The petitioner had sought a direction from the court to allow it to demonstrate the surgical robotic unit to the Technical Committee and to restrain the respondents from finalizing the tender during the pendency of the petition. However, the court rejected these pleas, citing several Supreme Court judgments that emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters. The court reiterated that the role of the judiciary is not to sit in appeal over the decisions of expert committees but to ensure that the decision-making process is free from arbitrariness, bias, or mala fides.

Justice Kainthla referred to the landmark judgment in *Tata Cellular vs Union of India* (1994), which laid down the principles of judicial restraint in administrative actions, particularly in matters of tender and contract awards. The court also cited *Jagdish Mandal vs State of Orissa* (2007), where the Supreme Court held that courts should not interfere in tender matters unless the decision-making process is arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The court noted that the Technical Committee, consisting of highly qualified doctors, was in the best position to assess the suitability of the robotic system for human use, and its decision could not be overruled by the court.

The petitioner had also argued that the principle of natural justice was violated as it was not given an opportunity to demonstrate the use of the stapler before the financial bid was opened. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the principles of equity and natural justice do not apply to commercial transactions such as tender evaluations. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Tata Motors Ltd vs Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking* (2023), which held that courts should not interfere in tender matters unless there is a clear case of arbitrariness or bias.

In its final ruling, the court dismissed the petitioner’s application for interim relief and vacated the stay on the tender process. The court emphasized that its observations were confined to the disposal of the application and would not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

The court’s decision reaffirms the principle that technical specifications in tenders must be strictly adhered to, and the use of medical devices on human beings must be demonstrated to expert committees before approval.

About the Author

Himachalscape bureau

Administrator

The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.

View All Posts

Himachalscape bureau

The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.