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

2025 Supreme(Pat) 449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ACJ and PARTHA SARTHY, J.
CWJC No.10325 with 12296 of 2023
(7.5.2025)
Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd. (in 10325)
M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (in 12296) ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
(in both)

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M/s Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Madan Kumar (in 10325); Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mohit Agarwal, Sushila Agarwal, Rahul Kumar (in 12296).
For the BSPCB : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh (in both).
For Respondent No. 5: M/s Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mohit Agarwal (in 10325).
For the State : M/s Ajay, GA-5 (in 10325); Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14 (in 12296).

Headnote:

Government Contract – By the impugned order, the Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board has cancelled the entire tender for the entire seven locations despite the respondents/Board having issued the letter of selection for locations of Muzaffarpur and Bhagalpur in favour of writ petitioners – Since it was a composite tender, any wrong assessment of any of the bidders to be the lowest or the highest for a particular location would have had a cascading/waterfall effect on all the tenders – In the circumstances and in all fitness of things, it appears that the Bihar Pollution Control Board took a decision of cancelling the entire tender process and re-tendering it – The decision does not appear to be arbitrary or fanciful or imbued with mala fides – There could be no dispute about the exercise of writ jurisdiction in disputes at the stage prior to the award of contract or after the contract comes into existence or even after the termination or breach of the contract, but with a caution that it should be exercised only if the decision of the executive in questioned and proved to be violative of the Constitution or is found to be arbitrary or imbued with mala fides – In the present case, it was a tender where the declaration with respect to L-1 bidder for two locations was found to be faulty – It would not have been fair to the other bidder in that case – Since most of the bidders had participated and had offered for request for various locations, the result for all the locations would have been affected by declaration of M/s Sangam Mideserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in CWJC No. 12296/23) as L-1 a particular location – Precisely to this reason, the entire tender was cancelled and, simultaneously, a fresh tender was issued separately for each of the locations – The parties never got an opportunity of any investment and it was only at the threshold stage when the agreement would have been entered into by the successful bidders, that this decision was taken – The reason for cancelling the tender, in its entirety, does not appear to us to be arbitrary or mala fide – Both the writ petitions are, thus, dismissed. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 34, 43 to 45)

Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ. – Both the writ petitions have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. Heard Shri Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10325 of 2023 (Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of 2023 (M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The respondents/Board and the State have also been represented through their respective lawyers.

3. In both the aforementioned writ petitioners, the prayer is for setting aside the order dated 26.06.2023 issued under the signature of the Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, whereby the entire tender, bearing NIT No. CL/884/2022/2010 dated 22.12.2022, for the entire seven locations was cancelled despite the respondents/Board having issued the letter of selection for locations at Muzaffarpur and Bhagalpur in favour of Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10325 of 2023) and for locations Gopalganj and Purnia in favour of M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of 2023).

4. In both the writ petitions, the further challenge is to the fresh notice inviting e-Tender for the same locations for setting up and operating a Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (hereinafter referred to as the CBWTF).

5. In accordance with the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, which, inter alia provides for treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste, a revised guideline was published for setting up of CBWTF, which mandated taking into account the gap analysis of the generation and treatment of bio-medical waste. Pursuant to this assessment, the Bihar Pollution Control Board was of the view that there was need for setting up seven CBWTF, one each in Patna, Gopalganj, Madhubani, Purnia, Sasaram, Muzaffarpur and Bhagalpur.

6. A notice inviting e-Tender for selection of entrepreneurs/service provider for setting up and operating Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) in Bihar was floated on 22.12.2022. By a single tender, bids were invited for setting up and operating seven CBWTFs. at seven different locations referred to above. The bidding was in two parts, namely, technical and financial. Both the bids had to be submitted simultaneously through e-procurement portal.

7. In the bid, referred to above, the petitioner/Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd. (C.W.J.C. No. 10325/2023) was found technically qualified for Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Patna and Sasaram, whereas M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of 2023) was found to be technically qualified for Muzaffarpur, Sasaram, Gopalganj and Purnia. Both the petitioners furnished their financial bids for each of the locations. The financial bid consisted of ten columns and the bidders were required to fill the quoted rate of collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste in column Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In column – 3, the rate for non-bedded HCFs were to be given on monthly basis. In column – 4, the rate for standalone lab/diagnostic centre were to be given on monthly basis. In column – 5, the rate for veterinary hospitals were to be given on monthly basis. In column – 6, the rate for PHC/APHC. were to be given on per Kg. basis. In column – 7, the rate for HCFs. of less than ten beds were to be given on monthly basis and in column – 9, the rate for HCFs. of more than ten beds were to be given on per bed/per day basis. The rates quoted in column Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were to be added up and the resulting value was to be divided by six (6) and this value was to be entered in column – 9. Any bidder quoting minimum value in column – 9 would be declared successful. However, this process had a caveat that before division, the rate quoted in column – 8 was to be multiplied by thirty (30) and th

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