ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER)

1. Heard Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-

“33(A)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Impugned decision dated 02.01.2019 issued by Respondent No.2 as well as quash and set aside decision of Respondent No.2 being Agenda Item No.22/15 and Agenda Item No.22/25 taken in 22^nd Board of Director (BOD) meeting held on 23.08.2017;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.2 to amend the Acceptance Letter dated 12.01.2018 to the extent that tax per unit of the Binocular Microscope be calculated at Rs.3239.10/- [amount arrived after applying GST @ 18% to the base price of Rs.17,995/-].

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the Impugned decision.

3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner sought leave to amend the petition. The request was granted. Thereupon, the petitioner inserted below quoted additional prayer:-

“33(A)(1) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside decision taken by the High Level Purchase Committee in its meeting held on 29.10.2018.”

4. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent that the petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in manufacturing/selling Microscope under the brand name of “Labovision”.

4.1 Somewhere in 2017, present respondent No.2 issued E- Tender Notice No.44/2016-17 and invited bids for supply of medical equipments, hospital furnitures, surgical items and other miscellaneous items, which included invitation for bids to supply approximately 956 Binocular Microscope (bearing Item Code 428.01) on Bi-Annual Rate Contract basis.

4.2 According to the petitioner, it submitted its bid for the said item Code No.428.01 within prescribed time limit (on 20.3.2017).

4.3 The petitioner has further claimed that on 3.4.2017, it received email communication whereby it was informed about its selection “in preliminary stage of Bid Evaluation Stage”.

4.4 Undisputedly, said selection/intimation was at screening stage/preliminary stage.

4.5 According to the petitioner, vide intimation dated 6.7.2017, the petitioner was asked to remain present on 11.7.2017 for presentation of “Technical Scrutiny & Demonstration”. The petitioner claims that its representative remained present during said meeting.

4.6 The petitioner has also alleged that subsequently, vide email communication dated 26.10.2017, the respondent No.2 again asked the petitioner to remain present for “re- demonstration” of Binocular Microscope.

4.7 According to the claim of the petitioner, the respondent informed the petitioner vide letter/e-mail dated 5.12.2017 that the petitioner's technical bid is treated as “qualified”. The said document dated 5.12.2017 is placed on record at page 71. The relevant part read thus,

“We wish to inform you that you have been selected in Technical Stage of Bid Evaluation stage for this tender.

We wish to inform you that stage Commercial Bid Stage would be open at Mar 30 2017 12:40 PM.”

4.8 The petitioner claims that subsequently it received email communication dated 23.12.2017 whereby the petitioner was asked to remain present before the Purchase Committee on 27.12.2017. The petitioner has also claimed that in response to the said communication its representative attended the meeting on 27.12.2017.

4.9 In this context it is necessary to mention, at this stage, that t