By the Court.—A Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued by the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare of the Government of Uttar Pradesh in respect of a project under the aegis of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). The project which was labelled as ‘102 National Ambulance Services’ envisaged the provision of ambulance facilities 24 X 7 in all the districts of the State that would be accessible through a 24 hour toll free number. The basic purpose of the project was to identify and respond to requests seeking transport and drop-back facility for pregnant women and sick neonates under the Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakaram (JSSK) and Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) schemes. Consequently, under the scheme, a successful bidder was to establish and operate an exclusive 24 hour call centre for managing and coordinating ambulance services and to provide trained manpower and equipment that would stabilize the beneficiaries and transport them to the nearest designated facility within the shortest possible time.

2. The proposals were required to be submitted in the form of a qualification bid and financial bid. A pre-bid conference was proposed to held. The RFP document stipulates the following requirements in regard to technical eligibility and financial capacity :

“2.3.2 To be eligible for bidding under this RFP, an applicant/bidder shall fulfil following conditions of eligibility:

a. Technical Capacity.—The Bidder should have at least 3 (three) years experience of running a minimum fleet of 100 Ambulances supported by a centralized call centre of at least 35 seats for last three years set up by the bidder; and

b. Financial Capacity.—The Bidder should have an average annual turnover/gross receipts of at least Rs. 50.00 Crores for the last three financial years (i.e. FY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-2013).”

3. The RFP stipulated that a bid security of Rs. 2 crores would be furnished which had to be kept valid from the date of the submission of the bid for a period of 180 days.

4. In pursuance of the RFP, the petitioner submitted a bid. At this stage, it may be necessary to note that clause 2.3.2 and clause 2.3.6.2 of the RFP document were challenged in the first writ petition (Writ - C No. 68462 of 2013) which was filed before this Court. Clause 2.3.2, as noted earlier, spelt out requirements in relation to technical capacity and financial capacity. Clause 2.3.6.2 is to the following effect:

“2.3.6.2 Any Entity which has been punished for any offence or the Director/President/Chairperson/Trustee of the that entity is convicted for any offence or against whom any criminal cases is/are pending before competent Court, shall not be eligible to submit the proposal. The Bidder or each member of Consortium (if Consortium is Bidder), as the case may be, shall have to submit an affidavit to this effect as per Format 4 as part of the Qualification Proposal.”

5. In the first writ petition which was filed by the petitioner before this Court, the legality of clause 2.3.6.2 was sought to be questioned on the ground that a mere pendency of a case against an entity or its Director/President/Chairperson cannot be a ground to determine the eligibility of an entity to participate in the bidding process. In paragraph 25 of the petition, the petitioner stated that the petitioner and its CEO had been ‘falsely implicated’ in one criminal case in which an FIR has been lodged and a charge-sheet has been submitted. The petitioner referred to an order dated 15 November 2011 passed by this Court at Lucknow, in pursuance of which, the Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry in regard to the execution and implementation of the NRHM and the utilisation of funds at various levels in the State. After investigation, the CBI registered over 100 First Information Reports and on 19 November 2011, a preliminary enquiry was conducted. On 3 August 2013, CBI filed a charge-sheet for the alleged commission of offences unde