The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial intervention in non-statutory contractual matters, the absence of tailor-made conditions to disqualify the petitioner, and the doctrine of substantial compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

INTRODUCTION :

The Government invites bids for establishing dialysis centres in the State of Goa. It fixes certain eligibility criteria for the bidders. An existing operator under the previous notification finds himself ineligible because of the new conditions. He assails the tender notification as tailor made with the objective of keeping him out of the reckoning and of helping a chosen candidate. He also complains that the Government has not complied with the Guidelines governing the government tenders.

Do these objections sustain themselves?

Facts :

2. One public spirited person filed PIL Writ Petition No. 359/2007 thirteen years ago. He espoused the public cause on the premise that the Government-run hospitals were in a deplorable condition. So he wanted judicial intervention. Pending that writ petition, to support his contentions, the petitioner in PIL WP No. 359/2007 secured and filed a third party’s affidavit. That affidavit affirms the allegations in the writ petition. That third party—Dr. R. Venkatesh—is the petitioner before us. He, in fact, filed two writ petitions : WP No. 1114/2016 and WP No. 718/2018.

3. The first Writ Petition—PIL WP No. 359/2007—concerns larger public issues, and this Court has already appointed a learned senior counsel as the amicus curiae to assist the Court. We reckon that Writ Petition needs separate adjudication. Therefore, in this disposition, it is not touched.

4. Dr. R. Venkatesh, who gave his affidavit in PIL WP No. 359/2007, has his own private grievances. Those grievances have engendered these two writ petitions. Having heard the respective counsel for the parties extensively, we propose to dispose of both these Writ Petitions—WP Nos. 1114/2016 and 718/2018—through this common judgment.

WP No. 1114 of 2016 :

5. We may set out in brief the factual background that has led Dr. Venkatesh to file this writ petition. In 2004, the Government decided to run a dedicated dialysis centre as a pilot project. Then, it assigned that task to Dr. Venkatesh, who is a qualified doctor. In 2007, he was asked to run another centre, too. He is said to have run both the dialysis centers successfully till 2012. Then in 2013, the Government decided to open those centres across the State. For that it floated a tender.

6. According to Dr. Venkatesh, until 2012 he ran both the dialysis centres successfully, and the officials concerned had no grievance. But in 2012 Dr. Venkatesh gave an affidavit to support the PIL Writ Petition No. 359/2007. Then, that spelt trouble to Dr. Venkatesh. The officials went on a rampage, creating many troubles to him. Besides, the Government issued a fresh tender notification, calling for bids for operating the dialysis centres in all hospitals, including those Dr. Venkatesh had been running.

7. In this writ petition, Dr. Venkatesh wants the Court to quash the tender notification, dated 31 October, 2016, published in local newspapers on 2 November, 2016 and to stay the impugned tender notification until the writ is decided.

WP No. 718/2018 :

8. In one breath, Dr. Venkatesh has pleaded that the contract he had with the Government in 2007 specified no time limit for the centres he had established. In another breath, he complains that the tender notification flouts the norms fixed by the Government, including the CVC. Pending WP No. 1114/2016, he has filed the second one : WP No. 718/2018. In this writ petition, Dr. Venkatesh narrates the harassment and the violence the officials have subjected him to, in the wake of his support to the public cause in PIL Writ Petition No. 359/2007. In this writ petition he seeks these reliefs : To direct the authorities to immediately restore the electricity to the petitioner’s dialysis unit; to order judicial inquiry into the fire incident at the dialysis unit and to reconnect the inverter for the dialysis unit; to direct the Government to pay Rs.25 lakh to the petitioner for the lost consumables and medicines in the fire; to di