The main legal point established in the judgment is that the terms and conditions of the tender notice did not require the bidders to have an area-specific Drug Licence for operating in Falkawn, and the decision to award the contract to the private respondent was found to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

[Sandeep Mehta, J.]

Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Das, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.342/2019 and Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.343/2019. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Advocate General, Mizoram, assisted by Mr. A. Kalita, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram, appearing for the State respondents.

2. These 2(two) intra-Court writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and final order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench in WP(C) No.131/2019 and WP(C) No.134/2019, respectively, filed by Smt. F. Lalremsangi, Proprietor of R.R. Pharmacy (appellant in Writ Appeal No.342/2019) and Shri Lalrozara (appellant in Writ Appeal No.343/2019), whereby the decision of the respondent Director, Zoram Medical College to award the contract for running the Pharmacy Canteen at the Zoram Medical College in Falkawn to the respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.343/2019, i.e. Dr. C. Zothanmawia, Proprietor of Medicare Pharmacy, pursuant to the Short Tender Notice dated 06.08.2019, was upheld and both the writ petitions were dismissed.

3. The bone of contention inter se between the parties is as to whether the decision of the respondent tendering authority, i.e. the Director of Zoram Medical College, in awarding the contract to a bidder, who was not having a Drug Licence for the area wherein the College was located, i.e. Falkawn, is valid in the eyes of law or not. A further projection is made by the appellants/writ petitioners that the terms and conditions of the original NIT were tinkered with at the instance of the private respondent with the intervention of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Mizoram and thus, impugned action suffers from nepotism and is tainted.

4. For better appreciation of the controversy, it would be apt to reproduce the language of the Short Tender Notice dated 06.08.2019 and the relevant conditions forming a part of the terms and documents published along with the Tender Notice:-

Short Tender Notice

A tender for running Pharmacy Canteen has been called for by the State Referral Hospital Falkawn (SRHF) – Zoram Medical College (ZMC) from 17th August, 2019 for a duration of 2 years. Reply to the tender should be made in writing on a plain paper addressed to the Director, ZMC on or before the 9th August, 2019 at 1:00 PM. Tender will be opened at 2:00 PM. Persons submitting their tenders must be present personally or through their representative. The person submitting their tender must mention the price of house rent he is willing to bid.

IPR NO.136

Sd/-

Director

Zoram Medical College

Falkawn : Mizoram”

“Terms and Conditions

1. ……

2. ……

3. The person selected to be the vendor of the Pharmacy Canteen should necessarily have a valid General Drug Licence (Schedule H). One (1) Xerox Copy of the Drug Licence must be enclosed.

4. ……

13. The decision of the ZMC/SRHF Managing Committee will be final on any disputed matter or matters to be settled with regards to the Pharmacy Canteen and cannot be argued.”

5. After receiving bids from all the bidders, a comparative statement was prepared, wherein the bidder R.F. Pharmacy was found to be offering the highest rent, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-; the bidder Jamajot Enterprise offered Rs.71,000/-per month as a rent, whereas the bidder R.K. Drug Store offered rent @ Rs.70,000/-per month. The bidder Medicare Pharmacy (respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.342/2019 and respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.343/2019), to whom the work order was awarded, offered a sum of Rs.60,000/-per month as rent, whereas R.R. Pharmacy (appellant in Writ Appeal No.342/2019) offered rent @ Rs.47,300/-and the appellant R.Z. Pharmacy (Writ Appeal No343/2019) offered rent @ Rs.47,000/- per month. The Drug Licences of all other compliant bidders were for different areas, whereas the Licences held by R.R. Pharmacy (appellant in Writ Appeal No.342/2019) and R.Z. Pharmacy, were issued for premises located in the Falka