Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Pravesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hear Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State.

2. By way of this writ petition (PIL), the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that appointment / nomination of res.no.3 as service provider for effective implementation of CIDMS and issuance of work order dated 02.02.26 (Annexure P-1) is bad in law.

10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the decision by which res.no.3 has been appointed as service provider for effective implementation of CIDMS and issuance of work order dated 02.02.26 (Annexure P-1).

10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the State Government to initiate a transparent processas prescribed under the C.G. Store Purchase Rules, 2002.

10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”

3. The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, a citizen of India, under the Constitution, invoking the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III, against respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are State authorities and thus amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The petition challenges the legality and validity of the action of the respondents in awarding a contract on a nomination basis and issuing a work order in favour of respondent no. 3, H.L.L. Lifecare Limited, for providing diagnostic and healthcare services in public health institutions across the State of Chhattisgarh. The controversy arises in the backdrop of the National Health Mission, under which the Chhattisgarh Integrated Diagnostic Management System (CIDMS) was established to ensure the provision of free, accessible, and quality diagnostic services in government health facilities in accordance with IPHS guidelines. CIDMS was envisaged as a comprehensive mechanism to strengthen diagnostic infrastructure across the State, particularly in rural, remote, and tribal areas where earlier attempts to implement PPP models had failed due to lack of private participation. However, owing to admitted deficiencies in manpower, infrastructure, equipment, consumables, and logistical arrangements, the State authorities deemed it necessary to procure such services from external agencies.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents, in complete disregard of the governing statutory framework and settled principles of public procurement, arbitrarily awarded the contract to respondent no. 3 on a nomination basis without inviting tenders or ensuring any form of competitive bidding. The Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, as amended on 11.07.2024, categorically mandate that all government procurements must be conducted through the GeM portal, ensuring transparency, adequate competition, and participation of at least three bidders, with the contract to be awarded to the lowest eligible bidder, except in rare and exceptional circumstances such as emergency or proprietary procurement, which must be duly justified and recorded. The petitioner asserts that no such exceptional circumstances existed in the present case, nor have the respondents disclosed any cogent or valid reasons for bypassing the mandatory tender process. The impugned action is further alleged to be violative of the principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability, and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, which strongly discourage nomination-based contracts without adequate justification and emphasize open competitive bidding as the norm. By excluding potential bidders and dispensing with price discovery, the respondents have allegedly caused grave prejudice to public interest and the Stat