JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioners seek an order of injunction restraining Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (Institute) from allowing the private respondent no. 5 to continue with the mechanised cleaning services in Chittaranjan National Cancer Research Institute and directing the respondents to forthwith award the tender to the petitioner no. 1. The Institute issued a tender for mechanised cleaning services of the Institute wherein the petitioner no. 1 and the private respondent participated. The petitioner challenged the selection of the private respondent as a successful bidder in an earlier writ petition being WPA no. 3574 of 2020 which was disposed of by a judgment dated 21.9.2022 directing the Institute to revisit the evaluation of the statutory and non-statutory documents required to be submitted by the three bidders in light of the tender conditions and come to a fresh decision within a certain time frame. Pursuant to the direction, the Institute constituted a Technical Re-evaluation Committee consisting of 5 Officers and found the private respondent to be technically-qualified for being awarded the tender over the other two bidders including the petitioner no. 1. The order passed by the Institute dated 11.11.2022 pursuant to the re-evaluation as directed by this Court, is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioners, through learned counsel, rely on several findings of the Court in the judgment passed in the earlier proceedings. Counsel say that the Institute has disregarded the findings and proceeded to justify the selection of the private respondent without due regard to the tender conditions. Counsel submits that the fact of the existing contract between the Institute and the private respondent being till 24.2.2023 should not stand in the way of granting relief to the petitioners. Counsel places an order passed in the earlier round of litigation on 18.3.2021 wherein the allotment of work to the private respondent was to abide by the result of the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Institute places Minutes of a Meeting held on 21.10.2022 whereby the Committee found the selection of the private respondent to be proper.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 5 relies on a document from the website of JSS Hospital which shows that the said hospital has 1800 beds under one roof and is one of India’s biggest hospitals. Counsel submits that the private respondent fulfilled the required eligibility criteria in the tender documents and was also selected by reason of quoting the lowest bid price as compared to the petitioner and one other bidder.

5. The dispute, in this second round of litigation between the parties, is whether the Institute justified the decision of awarding the tender to the private respondent without due regard to the eligibility criteria in the tender documents. The petitioners say that private respondent was selected despite failing the required criteria. If the petitioners succeed on this point the Court would then proceed to consider whether the balance of convenience would demand ending the contract between the Institute and the private respondent; the agreement commenced from February, 2020 and ends on 24.2.2023.

6. The judgment passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners directed the Institute to re-evaluate the eligibility of the three bidders including the petitioner no. 1 and the private respondent and come to a fresh decision. The judgment however contained certain findings in light of the tender conditions. The tender conditions / Instructions to Bidders consisted of statutory and non-statutory components. Under the first category, the bidder was required to have at least 3 years of experience in mechanised cleaning for 24x7 hours in any Government hospital with a minimum of 500 or more beds. Second, the bidder was to submit suitable documentary evidence in the form of work orders alo