Delhi High Court
Unimeditrek Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 1 December, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.12.2017
+ W.P.(C) 5474/2017 & CM No. 22991/2017
UNIMEDITREK PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sonal
Kumar Singh, Mr. Rajat Dasgupta and Ms.
Ankita Singh, Advs.
.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms. Madhuri
Dhingra, Adv. for R-1, 2
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rejection of its bid for
supply of Automatic Tissue Processor to the pathology institutions on the
basis of NIT (Notice Inviting Tender), issued on 16.02.2017, is arbitrary.
2. The petitioner is involved in manufacturing and selling of medical
equipments. It responded to the tender in question and submitted its bid on
20.03.2017. The bidding process involved two stages i.e. consideration and
evaluation of technical bid; and commercial finance price bid. The
respondents sought clarification from the petitioner with regard to two
documents i.e. CE certificate and recently issued performance certificate
from three Government hospitals or accredited private hospitals or
laboratories. The petitioner complied and also attended the vendors' meet
held on 19.06.2017. It is contended that when the technical evaluation
compliance sheet was uploaded on 20.06.2017, the respondents decided
that the petitioner's bid was not compliant for several reasons. Firstly, that
the documents furnished did not satisfactorily explain whether it had
fulfilled their eligibility criteria of having installed equipment, in at least
three reputed Government hospitals or private accredited hospitals or
laboratories after sale services. The rationale given was that the equipment
installed in the Kailash Hospital and histopathology intensive centre and the
equipment at Safdarjung Hospital is only two months old and lacking any
satisfactory performance certificate. So far as the past performance of the
equipment installed was concerned, the respondents felt that sufficient
satisfactory performance was not indicated from the tender documents i.e.
with respect to both the institutions i.e. Kailash Hospital and from the
Action Medical Institute or Action Cancer Hospital or the Kailash Hospital.
3. Complaining that the rejection of subject bid was arbitrary, the
petitioner approached this Court.
4. The respondents in their affidavit dated 21.08.2017 states as
follows:-
"6. As mentioned above, the firm M/s Unimeditrik Pvt.
Ltd. represented against the TEC report of the instant case to
the Office of DGAFMS vide their letter dated 20.06.2017 and
the file was forwarded to Sr Conslt (Med) on 27.06.2017 for
his valuable opinion on the issues raised by the representing
firm. Vide covering letter No. Path/TEC/2017 dated
13.07.2017; the Tech Expert forwarded the reconciled TEC
Report after reviewing the same vide which the Tech Expert
has declared all the 03 firms acceptable in the TEC."
5. Pursuant to the above development, the Court, after hearing the
counsel on 14.11.2017, had directed the respondent to open the petitioner's
price bid and indicate in a sealed cover the outcome of the same. As a
result, the respondent complied with that direction and opened the price
bid. It appears that the petitioner's quotation is competitive. Learned
counsel submits, in these circumstances, and having regard to its previous
stand indicated in the affidavit dated 21.08.2017, the petitioner's bid would
be processed further, given the status indicated in the price bid analysis
carried out pursuant to the orders of this Court.
6. In view of the above, direction is issued to the respondent to
complete the process and issue consequential letter/offer to the petitioner in
accordance with the tender terms within four weeks.
7. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 01, 2017
'rs'
