IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
INDERJEET SINGH, J.
M/s Translumina Therapeutics LLP, through its authorized Signatory – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13758 Of 2022 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13757 Of 2022 Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14423 Of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 226 - Medical devices - Reduction in rates of DES - By appropriate writ order or direction, impugned order passed by Respondent No.5 may kindly be quashed and set aside – Held, There is no privity shown of contract between petitioners and respondents rather contract was for reimbursement of DES, tripartite contract for which was entered into between State Agency, Insurance Company and hospitals where patient is to be treated; there is no allegation of mala fide levelled by petitioners in writ petitions and no person by name has been impleaded as party by which it can be said that impugned order has been passed just to favour any individual person/entity; USFDA approved DES are of better quality products and one of petitioner has also applied for certification from USFDA which shows that petitioners are inclined to have certificate - Petitioner-companies have failed to make out a case of arbitrariness of Government in taking such a decision of reduction in price of DES and that being so argument of petitioners’ counsel of there being discrimination is not sustainable and deserves rejection, therefore under facts and circumstances and from perusal of material which has come on record, in court considered view no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Writ petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
1. In all these writ petitions since identical controversy is involved, therefore at the request of both the counsel for the parties these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.
2. At the request of the counsel for the parties, the facts have been noticed from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13758/2022 and the prayer made therein reads as under :-
a) By appropriate writ order or direction, impugned order dated 12.08.2022 (Annex-18) passed by Respondent No.5 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
b) By appropriate writ order or directions, the Respondent state be directed to proceed and follow Public Procurement (preference to make in India) order, 2017 and to follow various officer memorandum and to not making USFDA approval a mandatory requirement;
c) By appropriate writ order or directions, the Respondent state be directed to not discriminate between companies, merely on the basis of Foreign Entity’s Certifications;
d) By appropriate writ order or directions, the Respondent state be directed to follow and allow the participation of Petitioner Firm in the old package;
e) By appropriate writ order or directions, the Respondent state be directed to continue with the old mechanism (package list), wherein, no discrimination was being done on the basis of certification;
f) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner to do the do the complete justice with the Petitioner.”
3. From perusal of the above, it transpires that under challenge herein is the order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the respondents whereby the rates have been revised of the package namely Coronary Stent for PTCA-Drug Eluting (DCGI and Non USFDA approved) which has been fixed @ Rs.12500/-per stent with further remarks that the claim shall be paid @ Rs.12500/-if the stent is DCGI approved and Non US-FDA Stent or as per actual cost of the stent whichever is lower, at the same time rates have also been revised of the package namely Coronary Stent for PTCA-Drug Eluting (DCGI and USFDA approved) which has been fixed @ Rs.23,625/-per stent with the furter remaks that the claim shall be paid @ Rs.23,625/-if the stent is DCGI approved and US-FDA approved Stent or as per actual cost of the stent whichever is lower.
4. Health is one of the top priority which a State Government apart from other factors has to take note of and arrange/provide the best medical facilities at its command to the citizens (patients) and in order to perform its duty the State Government time to time promulgates/executes and implements certain schemes with an object to provide better medical facilities to the citizens. Considering the issue of health of the citizens and to provide them the better & qualitative facilities at the rates which could be reasonable to them, the Government in the State of Rajasthan in the larger public interest came out with a comprehensive scheme namely Mukhya Mantri Chiranjeevi Swasthya Bima Yojna (hereinafter to be referred as the “Scheme”) under which a tripartite agreement was entered into the Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency (hereinafter to be referred as “Assurance Agency”), Insurance Company and the empanelled hospitals where the citizen (patient) is desirous of taking the treatment. The tripartite agreement indicates that there are three bodies/parties, in which the Assurance Agency is the authority on whose instructions & upon the terms and conditions prescribed by it in the public welfare, the medical treatment, facilities, medical devices to be implanted, are provided to the ailing patients; the insurance company is also one of the party in the said agreement and the next party is the hospital where the patient gets medical treatment and medical f
New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India MANU/SC/0564/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 478
Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam MANU/SC/0806/2015 : (2015) 10 SCC 681
Sube Singh v. State of Haryana
Meerut Development Authority & Ors. Association of Management Studies & Ors.
Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0017/1985 : AIR 1985 SC 1147
Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications MANU/SC/0439/1993 : AIR 1996 SC 51
Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha & Ors.
Jigya Yadav (Minor) through Guardian/Father Hari Singh Vs. CBSE & Ors.
State of Kerala Vs. Kandath Distilleries
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. & Ors.
In Re: Special Reference No.1 of 2012
Ramjas Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society
Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs. BOC India Ltd.
Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. CIPLA Ltd. & Ors.
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. and Another MANU/SC/0076/1987 : (1987) 2 SCC 720
Sai Bhaskar Iron Ltd. Vs. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission
Prag Ice and Oil Mills v. Union of India MANU/SC/0493/1978 : (1978) 3 SCC 459
Kerala SEB v. S.N. Govinda Prabhu and Bros. MANU/SC/0288/1986 : (1986) 4 SCC 198
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India MANU/SC/0075/1974 : (1974) 2 SCC 630
Mannalal Khetan and Ors. v. Kedar Nath Khetan and Ors. MANU/SC/0060/1976 : 1977(2) SCC 424
Essar Steels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.
Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors.
Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. S.N. Govinda Prabhu & Bros. & Ors.
Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Mafatlal v. Union of India MANU/SC/1203/1997 : 1997(5) SCC 536
Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Anr. MANU/SC/0089/1961 : AIR 1962 SC 316
Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors. MANU/SC/0048/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 925
R.K. Garg v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0074/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 2138
Gauri Shanker and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0010/1995 : (1994) 6 SCC 349
Union of India and Anr. v. A. Sanyasi Rao and Ors. MANU/SC/0326/1996 : (1996) 3 SCC 465
Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agrl. ITO MANU/SC/0189/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 591
The Twyford Tea Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. The State of Kerala and Anr.
Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Biraji & Ors. Vs. Surya Pratap & Ors.
Bacchaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Ors.
Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors.
Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
Ashoka Smokelss Coal Ind. P. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.
New Horizons Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0595/2007 : AIR 2007 SC 861
Union of India Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr. MANU/SC/0392/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 3983
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [MANU/SC/0380/1973] : (1974) 4 SCC 3: (1974) 2 SCR 348
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Point of Law- Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or comme....
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
(1) Court, while interpreting a particular provision, will have to apply principles of purposive construction – Modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic.(2) Court should....
Tender conditions upheld as reasonable for bidder integrity, safety and compliance; judicial review in contracts limited to arbitrariness, mala fides or public interest, with deference to administrat....
Point of Law – The principles that emerge from the above precedents are, the writ court has limited jurisdiction in matters concerning contracts and invitation to bid for contract; Court must adopt r....
The amendment to the eligibility criteria for bidders in the CPWD Works Manual is deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14, creating an unjust distinction between bidders based on their subsidiar....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.