By the Court.—These two writ petitions relate to the same subject-matter of the acceptance of bids by the respondent Medical Department of Government of U.P. offered by the respondent No. 4 M/s. Blue Star Engineering and Electronics Limited for the purpose of 23 CT scanners (16 slice) through a short term tender notice dated 26.4.2016. The last dates of receipt of the bids was 16.5.2016 on which date the technical bids were to be opened. The invitation for the offer has been filed as Annexure-1 to both the writ petitions.

2. The challenge raised is on the ground that the model offered by the respondent No. 4 is deficient on several counts with regard to the technical specifications as specified and therefore the acceptance of technical bid is absolutely contrary to the terms and conditions specified in the bid offer hence the same deserves to be quashed.

Dr. L.P. Misra alongwith Sri Vikas Singh learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions has taken the Court through various documents filed alongwith the record of the affidavit in response to urge that the technical bid was accepted overlooking the specified specifications of the concerned model and without there being any certification of the model offered by the respondent NO. 4 under the (United States Food and Drug Association) conditions as specified in the tender notice. After the arguments were heard further affidavits were required, as is evident from the order dated 6.3.2017, and 8.3.2017 that were filed on 20.3.2017 and the matter was heard again on 29.3.2017 whereafter the arguments could not conclude and on 29.3.2017 the following order was passed :

“Heard Dr. L.P. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jaspreet Singh for the respondent No. 4 and Sri H.P. Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

After the arguments of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 had concluded the Court proposes to verify the status of the chart that was appended as Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit to the Writ Petition No. 28140 (MB) of 2016 in order to verify the contents of the said chart from the original proceedings of the Technical Bid Committee.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays that the original record pertaining to the said chart shall be put up tomorrow.

Put up tomorrow i.e. on 30.3.2017”

3. The arguments were heard on 20.4.2017 and the judgment was reserved after exchange of affidavits as requested for by the learned counsel for the parties.

At the conclusion of the arguments, Dr. L.P. Misra for the petitioners formulated the arguments as follows :

I. Clause 18 of Section V-Technical Specification (page 59 of WP) provides that quoted model should be USFDA certified and Clause 12 of Section V-Technical Specification (page 59 of WP) provides for image storage capacity of at least 500 GB while the OP No. 4 (the tenderer) as against at least 500 GB storage capacity, has only 310 GB as certified by USFDA (Page 167 of WP). Addition of 1 TB memory externally is not certified by USFDA.

Para-7 read with para 2-Supplementary affidavit Dt. 8.3.2017 and 24 of WP :- (i) para 14 of counter-affidavit of State of Government in W.P. No. 28140 (M/B)/ 2016 and its Annexure CA-1.

II. Clause 16 of Section V-Technical Specification (page 59 of WP) provides that software mentioned in Cl.16 (a) to (m) should be an original product of principal firm. As against this the software (c), (h), (j), (k), (l) and (m) are third party software.

Para-7 and 25 of writ petition :- (i) para 14 of counter affidavit of State Government in W.P. No. 28140 (M/B)/ 2016- no reply by State.

(ii) para 18 of counter-affidavit of opp. party No. 4- no specific reply.

III. Clause 6 of Section V- Technical Specification (page 58 of WP) provides for ‘High Contrast Resolution’ that it should be minimum 15 lp/cm. As against 15 lp/cm, for the OP No 4, USFDA certified same 14.7 lp/cm at 10% MTF and 12.2 lp/cm at 50% MTF but the USFDA has not certified the model a