News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 195 | 2026:CGHC:11867-DB

March 12, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has dismissed a writ petition challenging the tender process for operating the state’s 108 Sanjeevi Express emergency ambulance services, reiterating that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with government tenders unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fide action.

The case was filed by M/s Jai Ambey Emergency Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in providing emergency medical response services such as ambulance operations and health helpline management. The company had previously operated the 108 ambulance service in Chhattisgarh after being awarded the contract in 2019. The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, which delivered its order on March 12, 2026.

The petitioner challenged the tender issued on September 24, 2025 for the operation, maintenance and management of the 108 Sanjeevi Express ambulance services in the state. According to the petitioner, the technical evaluation criteria and marking system introduced in the tender were arbitrary and structured in a way that allegedly favoured another bidder, EMRI Green Health Services. It was argued that earlier tenders floated in April and July 2025 had been cancelled and that the evaluation criteria were later modified through a corrigendum. The petitioner claimed these changes created an unfair advantage for the competing bidder.

The company further contended that the tender adopted the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method, under which technical scores carry significant weight. According to the petitioner, the revised evaluation system ensured higher technical marks for the rival bidder while placing other potential bidders at a disadvantage. Because of these allegedly tailor-made conditions, the petitioner chose not to participate in the final tender and instead approached the High Court challenging the process.

On the other hand, the state government and the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited opposed the petition and argued that the tender conditions were framed to ensure the selection of a technically capable agency that could efficiently deliver emergency medical services. The authorities stated that the earlier tenders were cancelled due to technical and administrative reasons and that modifications to the evaluation criteria were introduced after considering suggestions raised during the pre-bid stage by various stakeholders.

During the proceedings, the respondents also informed the court that the tender process had already been completed. A Letter of Intent was issued on December 29, 2025 in favour of EMRI Green Health Services, followed by the execution of a service agreement on January 23, 2026. The successful bidder has already begun preparations for implementing the project, including procurement of ambulances and recruitment of personnel.

The project is expected to significantly expand emergency healthcare coverage in the state. Under the new arrangement, a fleet of 375 ambulances including Basic Life Support, Advanced Life Support and neonatal ambulances will be deployed to strengthen emergency response services across Chhattisgarh. The upgraded system is expected to increase the number of citizens receiving emergency medical assistance every month.

After examining the record and hearing the arguments of all parties, the High Court observed that the petitioner had not participated in the third tender process and had failed to place any concrete material on record to establish that the decision-making process was arbitrary or intended to favour a particular bidder. The court noted that merely alleging favouritism without supporting evidence is insufficient to invalidate a public tender.

The bench also emphasized that judicial review in tender matters is limited and that courts generally examine the fairness of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. Since the tender had already culminated in a concluded contract and the successful bidder had begun implementing the project, interference at this stage could adversely affect public interest, particularly when the project involves critical emergency healthcare services.

In view of these circumstances, the High Court held that no grounds were made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.

Case Reference : WPC No. 137 of 2026, M/s Jai Ambey Emergency Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others; Counsels: For Petitioner: Mr. Brain Da Silva, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sarabvir Singh Oberai, Advocate; For Respondent No.1/State: Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General; For Respondent No.2/CMSCL: Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate; For Respondent No.3: Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Mr. Shiv Sewak and Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocates.