Jharkhand High Court
Kattigenahalli vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 1 October, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5534 of 2024
--------
Skratch Industry Private Limited, a company registered under the
Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at Om Circle,
Kattigenahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru Urban, PO, PS & District-
Bengaluru, Karnatka-560064 through its one of the Director namely
Ram Pravesh Kumar, aged about 36 years, s/o Sri Rambriksh Sharma,
R/o Village-Mahmadpur, PO & PS-Hilsa, District-Nawada, Bihar-
850103 ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, officiating at Project Building, H.E.C Township, PO & PS-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education &
Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Officiating at Nepal House, PO &
PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi
3. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa, Officiating at
Government Hospital, Near Town Hall, Bishunpur, PO, PS & District-
Garhwa ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG-II
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG
--------
02 /Dated: 01.10.20204
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner in this writ petition is questioning Clause 6.1.2 of
the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 14.08.2024. The said clause
states as under:
"6.1.2. The Bidder must have atleast single ongoing project of
providing paramedical manpower services in Government
Healthcare Sectors of Jharkhand State and a single Work Order
of value not less than Rs.15.00 crore (Fifteen Crore) for similar
nature of works or 2 Nos. work order of value 10.00 Crore (Ten
Crore) or 3 Nos. of work order of value 5.00 Crore (Five Crore)
exclusive for Government Healthcare Sectors during last three
years from the date of publication of this tender supported by
documentary evidence (performance certificate/agreement/work
order).
Note:- Similar nature of works means providing manpower service
of Highly skilled and skilled Category to the Government Health
Care Units only."
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that restricting
experience for making a bid only in respect of persons providing
Paramedical Manpower Services in Government Healthcare Sectors in
Jharkhand State is arbitrary, illegal and violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, apart from being arbitrary and discriminatory. He
contends that the petitioner has requisite work experience due to
execution of similar nature of work in other organizations, but due to the
impugned clause petitioner cannot participate in the NIT in question.
3. In "Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of
Karnataka" reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had held that in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender
document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be
conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering
authority is found to be malicious and misuse of its statutory powers,
interference by Courts is not warranted. In the said judgment, it was
also observed that certain preconditions or qualifications for tenderers
have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and
the resources to successfully execute the work, and if the State or its
instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding
the contract, interference by the Court is very restrictive since no person
can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.
This principle has been reiterated in several judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court including the judgment in "Airport Authority of India
v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) and
Others" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1334, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that Government and their undertakings must have
a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary,
discriminatory, malafide or actuated by bias, the Court would interfere.
It is further observed that Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the
tender prescribed by the Government because they feel that some other
terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.
4. Having regard to the settled legal position, we are not
inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in the instant case because
we do not find the impugned clause in the NIT to be arbitrary or
discriminatory.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk/Amit
