W.P. (C) No. 7078 of 2016. Case: El-Med-Imagine Vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court

Case NumberW.P. (C) No. 7078 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Kripa Shankar Nanda, Adv. and For Respondents: Rajesh Kumar, GP-V
JudgesAparesh Kumar Singh, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 226
Judgement DateFebruary 03, 2017
CourtJharkhand High Court


Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Jharkhand Medical and Health Infrastructure Development and Procurement Corporation Ltd. (JMHIDPCL) (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Corporation'), invited e-tender from registered and eligible manufacturers/their authorized dealers/distributors/authorized stockiest for Rate Contract of hospital furniture on 14.06.2016. The date of publication of NIT was 14.06.2016, Annexure-C/A-2. Ten bids were offered by interested bidders, which were opened on 08.07.2016, Annexure-C/A-3. Technical evaluation of bids were made by the Tender Sub Committee between 08.07.2016 to 11.07.2016, Annexure-C/A-4. Technical evaluation report of Tender Sub-Committee was approved by the Executive Committee on 12.07.2016, Annexure-C/A-5. Factory inspection were made on 22.09.2016, Annexure-C/A-6. Review of technical evaluation report of tender subcommittee was done on 29.09.2016 by Executive Committee relating to factory inspection, Annexure-C/A-7. Technical evaluation details and financial bid opening notice uploaded for information to the bidders on 26.10.2016, Annexure-C/A-8. 6 out of 10 tenderers including the petitioner were found to be technically disqualified. Financial bids were opened on 28.10.2016, Annexure-C/A-9 and uploaded on the website. Registered L-I bidders were given direction to demonstrate their approved products as per the specification on 31.10.2016, Annexure-C/A-10. Products were demonstrated by the respective bidders on 08.11.2016 and 16.11.2016, Annexure-C/A-11. Final acceptance of products of L-I bidders by the Executive Committee was done on 16.11.2016, Annexure-C/A-12. The letters of acceptance have been sent to L-I bidders, four of them, for signing of contract agreement on 15.12.2016, Annexure-C/A-13. The draft agreement have been received by the L-I bidders thereafter. The relevant chronology of dates supported with necessary documents is contained in the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent-State enclosed as Annexure-C/A-2 to Annexure-C/A-14.

3. Petitioner approached this Court on 13.12.2016 being aggrieved by the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee as reflected in communication at Annexure-4 dated 06.10.2016 whereunder it has been declared technically disqualified on account of the fact that the principal manufacturer of the petitioner, M/s. United Surgical Industries have been blacklisted in the State of Bihar.

4. When the matter was taken up on 15.12.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of blacklisting dated 7.7.2012 was impugned by the manufacturer M/s. United Surgical Industries before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19003 of 2012. By the judgment dated 3.7.2013 rendered by the Patna High Court, it has been clarified that the order impugned would not preclude the petitioner from participating in any tender process issued by other functionaries of the State or the Central Government. It was further clarified that the order of blacklisting and prohibiting him from participating in any future bid shall restrict only in respect of the future tender to be floated by the respondent Society therein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relevant details required as per the instant N.I.T have been disclosed by the petitioner in tender document vide Annexure-2. The manufacturer itself has been awarded several work orders thereafter by AIIMS Patna and AIIMS Bhuwaneshwar etc. It is also contended that work order have been issued in favour of the petitioner on being found the lowest bidder in the tender floated under Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society as per Annexure-6 dated 7.6.2016 to supply equipments for various hospitals within the State. The disqualification of the petitioner on technical ground was therefore not proper in the eye of law and on facts. Petitioner apprehended that work order may be awarded to the lowest bidder as financial bid has already been opened.

6. While granting time to the respondents to file counter affidavit by 03.01.2017 positively, it was observed that respondent may process the financial bid but the work order be not awarded to any person, if not already awarded.

7. Respondents have thereafter filed their counter affidavit on 09.01.2017 and supplementary counter affidavit on 20.01.2017. Petitioner has also furnished his reply on 13.01.2017 to the first counter affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that decision to disqualify the petitioner...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT