T.S. Thakur, J.

1. Central Government Health Scheme provides comprehensive medical care facilities to central government employees, pensioners and few other categories of individuals. The scheme envisages, among other benefits, free supply of medicines and drugs to the patients. With a view to ensuring timely supply of such medicines and drugs to the beneficiaries of the scheme, the Government empanels local chemists found eligible to make the supplies on the stipulated terms and conditions.

2. Bids for empanelment of chemists for supply of medicines and drugs to CGHS dispensaries situated in Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, Faridabad and Ghaziabad were invited by the Additional Director (MSD), CGHS, New Delhi from chemists eligible to do so. Aggrieved by the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender document, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing some of the terms incorporated in the same. The challenge primarily proceeds on the ground that the conditions stipulated in the tender document are excessively onerous and have the effect of excluding from the bidding process chemists who are otherwise eligible to be empaneled for making the supplies to the dispensaries in question. The petitioners allege that the conditions are tailor-made to suit the requirements of a handful of the suppliers by an unfair and arbitrary exclusion of others thereby violating the guarantee contained in Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. Appearing for the petitioner-association in W.P.(C)583/2008, Mr. Lahoty, learned Counsel strenuously argued that one of the conditions of eligibility prescribed in the tender document was an annual turnover of Rs. 1 crore for chemists seeking empanelment in the Delhi area during the last 3 financial years. That requirement for the previous years did not, however, exceed Rs. 25 lacs per annum which was, according to Mr. Lahoty, arbitrarily raised to Rs. 1 crore per annum with the oblique motive of favoring some and excluding others from bidding for empanelment. The stipulation was, according to the learned Counsel, unfair and arbitrary and could, thereforee, be struck down as unconstitutional.

4. The requirement of an earnest money deposit was in the past limited to Rs. 25,000/-, which has now been raised to Rs. 2 lacs in terms of Clause 5.01(a) of the tender document. Even this increase was, according to Mr. Lahoty, unwarranted and aimed at excluding eligible bidders from competition. So also the requirement of "Bar Code Scanning Facilities" in terms of para 5.01(b)(j) was an unnecessary infliction, according to the learned Counsel, and intended to serve the very same purpose of unfairly excluding eligible bidders from competition. Mr. Lahoty also found fault with the stipulation contained in the bid document which required the bidders to offer a discount of no less than 10%. According to him, the petitioners were entitled to a maximum discount of 16% from the manufacturers out of which if the Government were to demand a discount of 10%, the entire business arrangement between the chemists and the Government would be rendered financially unviable.

5. Mr. Lahoty also questioned the wisdom behind Clause 5.07 of the tender document which stipulates a performance security guarantee of Rs. 5 lacs and Clause 10 in Section II of the document which provides for levy of a penalty upon the chemists if the supplies are delayed beyond the permissible period. The learned Counsel argued that some of the conditions stipulated were vague in nature and thereforee, made it impossible for any serious bidder to make a serious and workable offer. The respondents had, according to Mr. Lahoty, failed to provide the requisite clarification despite a request made to them, which according to the learned Counsel made the entire exercise impracticable and illusory aimed at benefiting some hand picked chemists only while excluding the rest.

6. Appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)832/2008 M