Point of Law: Public Interest Litigation - Health delivery system in the State of Uttar Pradesh - Not maintainable as petition not espousing cause of any member of a disadvantageous section of society or any person, who is downtrodden or for certain disabled person, who is unable to approach the Court or that the matter in question relates to infringement or denial of any basic human right to such marginalized section of the society which enables the petitioner to espouse their cause

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Awasthi and Shri Saksham Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner has instituted the instant petition in the shape of Public Interest Litigation claiming the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or command or direction in nature of certiorari summoning (wrongly mentioned as 'summing' in the petition) the record in original and quashing the tender summary report dated 26.05.2021 through which the opposite party no.3 has been declared successful bidder true copy of which is marked as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or command or direction in nature of mandamus directing Opposite Parties No.2 to not to issue letter of intent in lieu of successful bidder."

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Advocate and a public spirited citizen. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is concerned about health delivery system in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. The petitioner has approached this Court primarily being aggrieved against the actions of the respondents relating to acceptance of the technical bid of the private-respondent no.3 for the purposes of supply of ambulance services in the State of Uttar Pradesh ignoring the fact that the private-respondent no.3 has been blacklisted in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the second wave of COVID-19 Pandemic, the heath infrastructure was exposed and was found wanting in many spheres. It has also been submitted that in the State of Uttar Pradesh large number of death took place and it is the need of hour that modern and upgraded medical infrastructure be prepared to face any future untoward pandemic or such medical emergency.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent no.2 with a view to strengthen and to provide for Advance Life Support Ambulance Services in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, invited bids from private sector related to Integrated Referral Transport System to be operated round the clock in the State.

7. It has further been urged that Clause 2.1.17 of the tender bidding document specifically state that a prospective bidder should not have failed to perform any contract or be expelled from any project or contract by any public entity or has abandoned or have refused to perform its obligation in any contract.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the private-respondent no.3 was providing ambulance services in the State of Madhya Pradesh under the National Health Mission. The services of the private-respondent were found deficient and for the said reason, the National Heath Mission, State of Madhya Pradesh terminated the services by means of the order dated 22.12.2020, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.3 with the petition.

9. It has also been submitted that the aforesaid deficiencies and discrepancies in the services rendered by the private-respondent no.3 also attracted attention of the print media. The articles published in a section of print media has been brought on record as Annexures No.4 and 5 respectively with the petition. It has also been alleged that the National Health Mission issued a letter to the private-respondent no.3 dated 25.01.2021 imposing penalty which has also been brought on record as Annexure no.6 with the petition.

10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is submitted that the private-respondent no.3, who has a tainted record, his bid could not have been accepted and the State-respondents by ignoring the aforesaid and having accepted the bid of the private-respondent no.3 on 21.05.2021 in effect is not only violating the term of the tender bid but giving a contract of such an important nature to a tainted company as responden