Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.N. Phukan, A. Pasayat, JJ.
DR. PRADEEP RAO - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 3696 of 1996
Decided On : 12-12-1996
S.K. Mund, for the Appellant; A.G. and Additional Government Advocate for opp. party Nos. 1 to 3, G. Rath and S.K. Padhi for Opp. party No. 5 and R. Roy, L. Roy and A. Roy for opp. party No. 4, for the Respondent
The scope of judicial review in matters of administrative decisions is limited. The Court will not interfere with the decision unless the decision-making process is vitiated or the order is tainted with mala fides.
Headnote:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - PURCHASE OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT - DECISION-MAKING PROCESS - VITIATION - MALA FIDES - INTERFERENCE BY COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an eminent homoeopathic doctor, filed a public interest petition challenging the State Government's decision to purchase a Single Plane Digital Cardiac Catheterisation Lab for the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital from M/s. Siemens Ltd. (Siemens), allegedly overlooking recommendations of the State Level Purchase Committee (SLPC) to purchase it from M/s. Philips Medical System India Ltd. (Philips).
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State Government had taken note of all relevant aspects, including financial involvements, while arriving at its decision, and that no interference was called for. It observed that quality had not been given a go-bye, and since both Siemens and Philips were companies of international repute, the distinction between them was really thin. Considering the financial involvement, expertise in the field of supply requisite equipments, the balance tilted in favor of Siemens. No mala fides had been alleged or established to tarnish the correctness of the decision taken by the High Level Committee of the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to file the petition. 2. Whether the State Government's decision to purchase the equipment from Siemens was vitiated by any mala fides or illegality. 3. Whether the X-Ray tube to be supplied by Siemens conformed to the prescribed standard.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner had the locus standi to file the petition as he was not acting for personal gain or private motive, but was genuinely interested in the purchase of quality equipment without unnecessary burden on the State Exchequer. 2. The Court found that the decision-making process was not vitiated and that there was no mala fides on the part of the State Government. It observed that the State Government had taken note of all relevant aspects, including financial involvements, while arriving at its decision. 3. The Court directed that Siemens would not be entitled to additional cost for supply of the X-Ray tube unless it conformed to the requirement.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition with no costs. However, it directed that Siemens would not be entitled to additional cost for supply of the X-Ray tube unless it conformed to the requirement.
JUDGMENT :
A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner, in eminent homoeopathic doctor of the Stats, has filed this petition stated to be in public interest questioning decision of the State Government to purchase Single Plune Digital Cardiac Cathaterisation Lab for the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital from M/s. Siemens Ltd., (in short, 'Siemens'), allegedly over-looking recommendations of the State Level Purchase Committee (in short, 'SLPC') to purchase it from fv?/s. Philips Medical System India Ltd., (in short 'Philips'). It is stated that quality of equipment for which order has been placed with Siemens is inferior to that offered by Philips, and in any event indicated determinative reason of lesser financial involvement is not factually correct.
2. A reference to the1 factual aspects with some details would be necessary.
On 23-2-1999 seated tenders were invited for supply of the equipment. . Three cocerns, namely. Philips, Siemens and M/s. WilmoGs. submitted their tenders. The sealed tenders were opened by Director of Medical Education and Training (in short, 'DMET') and were-Scrutinised. On 23-11-1995 and 30-11-1995 the tender papers were placed before the Purchase Sub-Committee constituted by the State, The Health Department decided to avail opinion of experts from outside (the State and for that purpose decision was taken to select experts. On 22-12-T995, meeting of the State Level Purchase Committee was held. Though three nominated experts from outside the State were to attend, only one namely. Dr. U. N. Kaul, Professor and Head of the Department of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Science (in short, 'AllMS')'attended the meeting. The Committee inter alia decided as follows :
"It is, therefore, decided that since the Philips System of Cath, Lab is considered to be technically No. 1 and commercially being lower as compared with Siemens, the same may be purchased."
The above matters was exammined by the State Government as it was decided to place the matter before another Committee to be constituted, in which at least two outside experts should be there. On 28-2-1996 and 29-2-1996 the Expert Committee consisting of the Secretary of Health Department, the DMET, Orissa and Professors and Heads of the Department of Cardiology of V. S. S. Medical College, Burla, and M. K. C. G. Medical College, Berhampur, and two Assistant Professors of Cardiology of S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack met. The Committee found as follows :
"The SLPC in its meeting held on 22-12-1995 had made M/s, Philips Company technically T-1 and M/s. Siemens "Company technically T-2. We agree that Philips is T-1 and marginal/.superior to Siemens."
On 10-3-1996 the Technical Expert Committee consisting of four outside experts and a host of internal experts met to consider the question of purchase of Cardiac Cath. Lab. in the said meeting the Committee found as follows :
"......It is seen that Philips satisfies almost all tender specifications with M, R. C. Tube. Siemens Ltd. comes next."
However, the Government decided to place order with Siemens as its equipment was cheaper and maintenance cost of the equipment is cheaper. It was observed that Philips was only marginally superior to Siemens.
3. Petitioner's stand is that ignoring the opinion of several outside experts, the State Government took a decision to place order with Siemens, The Siemens equipment does not conform to genera! specifications at least in respect of four items including the X-ray tube which is a vital and important component of Cath. Lab. system. The X-ray tube offered by Siemens is of cheaper and inferior quality and did not conform to the specification and its cost is Rs. 11 lakhs. The tube offered by Philips was Rs. 22 lakhs. This has been taken to be a ground for deciding in favour of Siemens ignoring the fact that the tube offered by it was of inferior quality and the instrument which requires sophisticated components if consists of materials of inferior quality, it would certainly affect effec
