SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI and ARUN KUMAR JHA, JJ.
CWJC Nos. 16899 of 2022 with 8553 of 2023
(10.11.2023)
BVG India Ltd. & Ors. (in 16899)
M/s Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. (in 8553) ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: M/s S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Adv., Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Nirbhay Prashant, Vishal Kumar, Rahul Kumar, Lokesh Kumar (in 16899); Abhinav Srivastava (in 8553).
For the Respondent No. 4: M/s Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv., Satyabir Bharti, Abhishek Anand, Kanupriya, Sushmita Sharma (in both).
For the Resp Nos. 1, : M/s Umesh
2 and 3 Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv., Aditi Kumari, K.K. Sinha, Vaibhav Veer Shankar (in both).
For State : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP 25, Upendra Prasad Singh, AC to GP 25 (in both).

Headnote:

Government Contract–Scope of interference in the tender/contract matters, one of the principles is that Court has got no expertise to assess eligibility of bidders–in the present case, on the face of the record, read with criteria at clause 2.2, if is evident that petitioner's–BVG bid application was rejected contrary to the intention of the NIT in particularly enclosure of Audited Balance sheet except that there was no instruction to the respective bidders in the NIT to produce internal material information of Audited Balance sheet like 'Notes'–therefore, there is arbitrariness in the rejection of the petitioner's–BVG application–similarly, fourth respondent–Pashupatinath Distributer Private Limited bid application was held to be in order is incorrect and it is in accordance with clause/criteria at clause 2.2. and clause 2.3 of NIT–Forth respondent–Pashupatinath Distributor Private Limited is not fulfilling the turnover of INR 100 crore and experience qualification is also not fulfilled–these defects have been ignored by the second respondent–society which proceeded to hold that fourth respondent is eligible in technical bid evaluation and financial bid, it's declaration as LI and award of contract to the respondent No. 4–thus, the decision of the second respondent–society would fall under the arbitrariness–therefore, eligibility of bidders is not being re-assessed by the Court–on the other hand, decision of second respondent–society to favour the fourth respondent–society to favour the fourth respondent–Pashupatinath Distributor Pvt. Ltd. is evident in ignoring the criteria and eligibility mentioned in the NIT read with material information placed by the fourth respondent along with bid application–the petitioner–BVG India Ltd. and two others have made prima facie case that rejection of their technical bid is contrary to factual aspects and contrary to clause 2.2 of NIT–clause 2.2 does not stipulate or instruct respective bidders to furnish internal material information from the audited Balance sheet read with the statement of profit and loss like Notes–therefore, impugned decision in disqualifying the BVG India Ltd. and others stands set aside–CWJC No. 16899/2022 allowed–CWJC No. 8553/2023 partly allowed to the extent reliefs sought against fourth respondent. (Paras 53, 57 and 70)

(1997) I SCC 53, (2022) 6 SCC 401 Para 28.4, 28.5; (1995) I SCC 478 paras 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26; (2020) 16 SCC 489 paras 20 and 21; (2022) 6 SCC 127 paras 11, 13, 15, 17, 22 & 23; (2007) 8 SCC 1 paras 38 & 39; (2020) 17 SCC 577 paras 18, 19; (1995) I SCC 478 paras 23 & 24; paras 22 * 23; (2007) 8 SCC 1, (2011) 11 SCC 524; (2012) 7 SCC 587; (2018) 5 SCC 462 para 51–Referred.

P. B. Bajanthri, J. –

CWJC No. 16899 of 2022

In the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief/reliefs: –

“a. For quashing and setting aside the minutes of meeting of the Technical Committee (Respondent No. 3) dated 22.11.2022 (“impugned order”) issued on 28.11.2022 as contained in Annexure P/1, by which the Petitioners have been held to be disqualified in technical bid in the most arbitrary manner, contrary to principles of natural justice, illegally as well as having without jurisdiction.

b. For directing the State Health Society, Bihar (Respondent No. 2) to declare the petitioners as technically qualified and consequently open their financial bid in relation to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing reference no. 01/SHSB/PPP(AMBULANCE)/2022-23.

c. For issuing appropriate orders restraining the respondent authorities from opening financial bid and handing over the work order (in relation to the tender in furtherance of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) Reference no., 01/SHSB/PPP(Ambulance)/2022-23 to any of the bidders until the pendency of the present writ application.

d. For declaring that the action of the Respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, mala fide, malicious, colourable exercise of power, violating of principles of natural justice as well as without jurisdiction.

e. For directing the State Health Society, Bihar (Respondent No. 2) to declare the Respondent No. 4 as disqualified in the tender bearing reference no. 01/SHSB/PPP(AMBULANCE)/2022-23.

f. For further passing such an order or orders for which the petitioners are entitled under the law in the facts and circumstances of this case.

g. For directing the respondent authorities to cancel tender bearing E-Tender (NIT) Reference No.:- 01/SHSB/PPP/(Ambulance)/2022-23 (hereinafter referred as “NIT”) invited on 05.04.2022 as the confidential information and papers, both technical & financial, of the bidders so submitted by them with their respective tender documents was leaked in connivance with officials of the department during the pendency of the evaluation of the bid and all the confidential information of the bidders, except the Respondent No. 4, have been floating in the market from one hand to another hand and whereby the tender process has been compromised.

h. For directing the respondent authorities to disqualify the Respondent No. 5 & 6 in the tender bearing reference no. 01/SHSB/PPP(AMBULANCE)/2022-23 for submission of false information in Annexure – G relevance to the RFP clause 7 for fraudulent practices.

i. for quashing the Minutes of the meeting of Project Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred as “PAC”) held on 23.01.2023 related to financial bid opening with reference to the NIT: 01/SHSB/PPP (Ambulance)/2022- 23 wherein and where under M/s Pashupatinath Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 4), the blue eye baby of the SHSB, has been declared L1 by lowering down the eligibility criteria earlier published in RFP.”

2. Petitioner No. 1 – BVG India Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BVG’) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and has been providing facility management services to several public institutions and private organizations. It is also providing ambulance services in various States like State of Maharashtra, Telangana and Jammu and Kashmir. It claims that it has expertise in the aforementioned services.

3. Petitioner No. 2 – Sammaan Foundation works with marginalized section of the society in areas like healthcare, emergency services, community mobilization and participatory management. It is providing various kind of services through different projects in the States of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Rajasthan.

4. Petitioner No. 3 is the Consortium of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 3 was formed to participate in the tender issued by the State Health Society, Bihar (hereinafter refe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top