Delhi High Court
Vins Bioproducts Limited & Anr. vs Medical Superintendent, ... on 17 July, 2020
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.07.2020
+ W.P.(C) 4213/2020
VINS BIOPRODUCTS LIMITED & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Fernandes with Mr. Darpan Sachdeva and
Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 4213/2020 & CM APPL.15174/2020 (stay)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioners impugn communication dated 08.07.2020 (signed on
09.07.2020), whereby, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected
by the respondents for their tender and petitioners were debarred on
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:17.07.2020 17:07:05
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
the allegation that they had submitted incorrect particulars in their bid.
Further petitioner impugns order dated 10.07.2020 whereby the
representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the debarment
order was issued without any show cause notice and without giving
any opportunity to the petitioners to present their case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
petitioners have received one letter dated 16.07.2020 from the
respondent No.1. Copy of the letter dated 16.07.2020 has been filed
through e-mail. The same is taken on record.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that
the subject tender has already been cancelled. He further submits that
in terms of letter dated 16.07.2020, the order dated 08.07.2020 (signed
on 09.07.2020) had only rejected the bid of the petitioners for
participation in that tender. He submits that the letter specifically
states that only the bid of the petitioners was rejected and they were
not debarred from participating in any bid. He categorically states that
impugned letter dated 08.07.2020 (signed on 09.07.2020) is not to be
considered as an order of debarment of the petitioners from
participating in any tender.
6. In view of the above, it is held that the impugned letter dated
08.07.2020 (signed on 09.07.2020) shall be treated only as a letter of
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:17.07.2020 17:07:05
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
rejection of petitioners' bid and shall not be construed as an order of
debarment of the petitioner from participation in any tender. Since the
Respondent No. 1 by its letter dated 16.07.2020 has clarified that
letter dated 08.07.2020 (signed on 09.07.2020) is only a letter of
rejection of bid and not an order of debarment, the challenge to
rejection order dated 10.07.2020 is infructuous.
7. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8. Copy of the judgment be uploaded on the High Court website
and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
JULY 17, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:17.07.2020 17:07:05
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
