Arora Medical Hall vs Uoi & Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1180 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) 5110/2008 & CMA No. 9772/2008

%                                  DATE OF DECISION : 29th JULY, 2008


      ARORA MEDICAL HALL                     ..... Petitioner
                  Through:                           Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj,
                                                     Advocate

                   versus


      UOI & ANR.                             ..... Respondent
                            Through:                Mr. Rajeev Mehra with
                                                    Mr. Sumeher Bajaj,
                                                    Advocate


CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

                            JUDGMENT

MUKUL MUDGAL, J: (ORAL)

Rule DB.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is

taken up for final hearing.

The present writ petition has been moved against the action of the

respondents in not opening the commercial bid of petitioner invited vide

tender document dated 11th June, 2008 for supply of medicine/drugs to

CGHS dispensaries and calling fresh commercial bid for same contract only

for the groups in which the petitioner was one of the bidder.

The counter affidavit contains order dated 18th July, 2008 passed by

Dr. S.N. Mishra, Dr. V.S. Rawat and Mr. Jai Prakash which reads as

follows:

"With reference to the representation of M/s. Arora Medical Hall received on 09.07.08, the issue of opening of Price bid on 04.07.08 was discussed by the Price Bid Opening Committee and it was decided to open the Price Bid of M/s. Arora Medical Hall which was not opened on 04.07.08 since they are found to be technically eligible, subject to Vigilance Clearance for empanelment.

In case there is tie, fresh price bids will be opened which have already been received earlier."

The counsel for the petitioner has objected to the vigilance clearance.

But the learned counsel for the respondent clarifies that all successful

bidders are required to go through the vigilance clearance for empanelment.

In the light of this, we are of the opinion that no grievance survives

further.

Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of having become

infructuous.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J

MANMOHAN, J JULY 29, 2008 rb