Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
P. Sam Koshy, J.
Medico Remedies Limited - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education and ors. – Respondents
WPC No. 2294 of 2022
Decided On : 15-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kishore Bhaduri Sr. Adv along with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A., Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.
Headnote:
Tender - Order of blacklisting - Aggrieved by impugned order, instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner - Vide said impugned order, petitioner's firm has been blacklisted for a period of three years – Held, Petitioner had themselves accepted demand of department so far as supply of some other products on same price quoted in their earlier bid, cannot be accepted for reason that it is aspect of feasibility which had to be seen and it was for petitioner’s firm to take a decision and where they have found it feasible they had supplied products demanded at price quoted earlier, where it was not feasible they have withdrawn their bid - Petitioner cannot be compelled nor did department have any powers thereafter beyond validity period particularly when validity was not extended to have insisted upon making supply at price quoted earlier - Impugned order so far as blacklisting of petitioner vide Annexure P/1 is concerned, Court has no hesitation in holding that same is apparently bad-in-law, arbitrary and illegal and same deserves to be set aside/ quashed - Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P/1), the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Vide the said impugned order, the petitioner's firm has been blacklisted for a period of three years.
2. The facts of the case in brief is that respondents no. 2 & 3 floated a tender on 25.06.2020 calling upon the interested parties for the supply of EDL/Non-EDL drugs and consumables /ayush /equipment /kit items. The petitioner participated in the said tender for the supply of three drugs, those are Amoxycillin Cap. IP 250mg, Amoxycillin Cap. IP 500mg and Ciproflaxacin Tab. IP 500 (D123).
3. In terms of the tender document itself, the validity of the Bid was for a period of 120 days as would be evident from Clause-4.2. For ready reference the contents of the validity of the bid from the terms of the tender document are being reproduced here-in-under:-
“4.2 Validity of Bid
The bid shall be valid for a period of 120 days from the date of opening of Cover-A (Technical Bid) and prior to the expiry of the bid validity, the Tender Inviting Authority may request the BIDDERs to extend the bid validity for further period as deemed fit. However, CGMSC Ltd., reserves the right to place purchase orders at the quoted rate till such period of validity of the tender and the BIDDER(s) are bound to accept the orders at the rates quoted / accepted and within the production capacity indicated in the tender, irrespsective of execution of agreement / finalization of price.”
4. The tender was floated on 25.06.2020 and the period of the validity would start from opening of Cover-A which was opened on 21.07.2020. Accordingly, 120 days comes to an end on 17.11.2020. Though, the petitioner's firm had participated in the tender, they were not offered any order till the validity of the bid i.e. uptill 17.11.2020. In-terms of clause-4.2 of the tender document, the validity period of the bid was also not extended by the respondents 2 & 3, as such the validity of the bid automatically got lapsed beyond 17.11.2020. Subsequently, the respondents no. 2 & 3 made certain correspondences with the petitioner for the supply of the aforementioned three drugs. However, the petitioner-firm at that point of time, though accepted the offer, but had quoted a different and higher rate from that quoted in the bid that was submitted by the petitioner. This was not acceptable to the respondents no. 2 & 3 and it was on this context that the respondents no. 2 & 3 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why they should not be blacklisted. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by way of a writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 5285 of 2021, this Court disposed of the said writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice and the respondents in-turn to consider the contents of the said reply that the petitioner would be submitting and to pass a fresh order altogether. It was further directed that the respondents while taking a decision on the show-cause proceedings, would also bear-in-mind clause 4.2 of the tender document dealing with the validity of the bid.
5. Pursuant to the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition by this Court on 03.01.2022, the impugned order now has been passed on 12.04.2022. The respondents have now passed the order of blacklisting the petitioner-establishment for a period of three years, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. Primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once when the validity of the bid got lapsed on culmination of 120 days' period and meanwhile since there was no offer made hence there was no obligation as such upon the petitioner’s firm whatsoever towards the respondents no. 2 & 3. It was the further contention of the petitioner that in-spite of the fact that clause 4.2 of the tender document had a provision for extending the validity of the bid, the respondents no. 2 & 3
