Patna High Court
M/S Science House Medicals Private ... vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17505 of 2024
Table of Contents
Sl. No. Topic Page No.
1 Cause Title 2
2 Case of the petitioners 6 to 9
3 Submissions on behalf of the petitioners 9 to 17
4 Submissions on behalf of the Society and its authority 17 to 23
(Respondent nos.2&3)
5 Stand of the Respondents No.4&5 23 to 26
6 Rejoinder of the petitioners 26 to 30
7 Stand of the Respondent no.6 31 to 32
8 Consideration 32 to 33
Relevant Clauses of the N.I.T. 33 to 36
Format of the Financial Bid-Percentage of discount on the base 37 to 38
price
Requirement to quote percentage of discount in the format as 38 to 40
indicated in Annexure-16, Section VII of the N.I.T.
General Instructions-applicability of Clause 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 40 to 42
discussed
Discrimination noticed in the matter of consideration by deviating 42 to 44
from past practices-conduct of the Society discussed
Member of the PAC not signing the minutes dated 23.10.2024 44 to 47
Findings with regard to not filing the eligibility criteria-false entry 47 to 58
in Technical Bid Comparison sheet to favour the consortium of R-
4 and R-5
False entries in Technical Bid Comparison chart to favour 58 to 61
consortium of R-4 and R-5
Public Interest ignored by the Society (R-4 & R-5) 61
Opinion of this Court 61 to 62
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
2/62
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17505 of 2024
======================================================
1. M/s Science House Medicals Private Limited having its registered Office at
1st Floor, Plot No.- C-65 at Gautam Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India-
462023 through its authorised signatory Mr. Sanchit Chaturvedi, aged about
33 years, son of Satish Chaturvedi, House No.A-07, Ashima Divine City,
Near Pebble Bay Phase II, Baghmugaliya, Huzur, PS- Baghsewaniya,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462043.
2. M/s Sodani Hospitals and Diagnostics Private Limited having its registered
office at LG-1, Morya Centre, Opp. Basket Ball Club 16/1, Race Course
Road, Indore (M.P) through its authorised signatory Mr. Sanchit Chaturvedi,
aged about 33 years, son of Satish Chaturvedi, House No.A-07, Ashima
Divine City, Near Pebble Bay Phase II, Baghmugaliya, Huzur, PS-
Baghsewaniya, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462043.
3. Consortium of Science House Medicals Private Limited and Sodani
Hospitals and Diagnostics Private Limited having its registered Office at 1st
Floor, Plot No.- C-65 at Gautam Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India-
462023 through its authorised signatory Mr. Sanchit Chaturvedi, aged about
33 years, son of Satish Chaturvedi, House No.A-07, Ashima Divine City,
Near Pebble Bay Phase II, Baghmugaliya, Huzur, PS- Baghsewaniya,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462043
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department,
Government of Bihar 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800015.
2. The State Health Society, Bihar through Executive Director, Parivar Kalyan
Bhavan, Sheikhpura, Patna.
3. The Executive Director, State Health Society, Bihar, Parivar Kalyan Bhavan,
Sheikhpura, Patna.
4. Hindustan Wellness Private Limited, through its director, having its
registered office at 107, 1 Floor, Sector-44, Gurugram, Haryana, India,
122001.
5. Dr. Khannas Pathcare Private Limited, through its director, having its
registered office at E-8-A, Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, Delhi,
India - 110016.
6. POCT Services, having its registered office located at 298-281, Transport
Nagar, Kanpur Road, adjacent to Transport Nagar Metro Station, P.S. -
Sarojini Nagar, P.O. - Manas Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226023
through its duly authorized representative, Vinay Mishra, Male aged about
54 years, S/o Late Data Ram Mishra R/o - B-653, P.O. and P.S. -
Rajajipuram Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226017.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
3/62
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Nirbhay Prashant, Advocate
For the State of Bihar : Mr.Vikash Kumar, SC-11
For the State Health Society: Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kumar Shanu, Advocate
Mr. Shubham, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Advocate
Mr. Yash Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ishhan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate
For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate
Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate
Mr. Govind Raj Shahi, Advocate
Mr. Manogya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 08-08-2025
The present writ application has been preferred seeking to
challenge the decision of the Project Appraisal Committee (in short
('PAC') of the Bihar State Health Society (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Society') taken in its meeting dated 23.10.2024 signed on
29.10.2024
by which the financial bid of the petitioner no.3 has
been placed at L7 as a result of which the petitioner no.3 has been
declared unsuccessful even though the petitioner no.3 offered the
highest percentage of discount of 77.06 %.
2. Initially when the writ application was filed the
petitioners prayed for the following relief:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
"i. For issuance of the writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing of the Order of Financial
bid disqualification dated 29.10.2024 and declare
the Order of disqualification as illegal and void in
law;
ii. For directing the State Health Society, Bihar
(Respondent No. 2) to reconsider the Financial
Bid of the Petitioner and Award the
contract/Purchase order to the Petitioner as the
Petitioner offered highest percentage of discount
of 77.06%.
iii. For directing the Respondent No. 2 not to
cancel the Tender (e-tender notice (NIT)
Reference No. 09/SHSB/Pathology Service/ 2024-
25 dated 22.08.2024) or publish any new or
similar tender or re-tender.
iv. For directing the Respondent No. 2 to cancel
award of contract/Purchase Order issued in favour
of Respondent No. 4 in consortium with
Respondent No. 5;
v. For directing the Respondent No. 2 not to
accept any performance Bank guarantee or return
the performance bank guarantee, if any submitted
by Respondent No. 4 in consortium with
Respondent No. 5.
vi. For directing the Respondent No. 2 not to
proceed further or issue any order in the Tender
(e-tender notice (NIT) Reference No.
09/SHSB/Pathology Service/2024-25 dated
22.08.2024) till the final disposal of this writ.
vii. Award the cost of present writ petition to the
petitioner;
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
viii. Pass such other or further orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case as well in the
interest of justice."
3. During the pendency of the writ application, by filing
I. A. No. 1 of 2025 the petitioners amended the writ application.
The said amendment has been allowed by this Court vide order
dated 28.04.2025. The respondents were given opportunity to file
additional counter affidavit. The facts stated and the reliefs prayed
in the amendment application have been taken as part and parcel
of the writ application. Therefore, the reliefs added to the writ
application are being reproduced hereunder:-
"1. (ix) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in
the nature of Certiorari quashing the Letter of Intent
dated 05.11.2024, the Contract Agreement dated
19.11.2024, and the Letter dated 31.12.2024 which
have been issued against the prescribed law of RFP as
well as against the principle of Natural justice.
1. (x) and, an interim injunction be granted, and that
the effect and operation of the Letter of Intent dated
05.11.2024, the Contract Agreement dated
19.11.2024, and the Letter dated 31.12.2024 be stayed
pending the disposal of the present writ petition.
1 (ix) Further, the Respondents may be restrained
from taking any action or proceeding further with the
said Letter of Intent dated 05.11.2024, the Contract
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
Agreement dated 19.11.2024, and the Letter dated
31.12.2024."
Case of the petitioners
4. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are private limited
companies, they have formed a consortium known as
Consortium of Science House Medicals Private Limited and
Sodani Hospitals and Diagnostics Private Limited. This
consortium is petitioner no.3 in the writ application.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Health
Society, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society')
(respondent no.2) invited an online tender from eligible and
qualified bidders for selection of Agency to provide pathology
services at designated government healthcare facilities in Hub
and Spoke Model in the State of Bihar vide E-tender (NIT)
Reference No.09/SHSB/Pathology Service/2024-25 dated
22.08.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tender or NIT').
6. Altogether 7 firms /companies participated in the
tender. Petitioner no.3 happened to be one of the tenderers who
submitted its bid on 02.10.2024 via e-procurement portal of the
State of Bihar. It is stated that during the process of uploading
the financial bid (BOQ) onto the portal, the petitioner
encountered a mandatory blank field labelled "Rate" which had
to be filled in order to proceed with the upload of the financial
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
bid. Additionally another blank field labelled "Total Amount"
was adjacent to it, which gets auto populated when any details
are filled in the 'rate' field. Because of this ambiguous naming
of these fields it caused confusion to the petitioner regarding
their correct interpretation and required input. In order to
resolve the confusion, the petitioner telephonically contacted
the Administrative Officer and e-procurement officials of the
Society who clarified that the petitioner could enter any value
in the "Rate" field, as this was only required to facilitate
uploading of the financial bid and would not be considered for
the financial evaluation as per tender terms and conditions. The
petitioner asserts that it was given to understand that only the
contents of the uploaded financial bid (BOQ) would be taken
into account for the purposes of financial evaluation as per
tender terms and conditions.
7. It is the further case of the petitioners that relying
upon the express assurances from the relevant authorities the
petitioner entered the value "1" in the aforementioned field and
successfully uploaded the financial bid (BOQ) as per the
instructions provided in the relevant clauses of tender and
Annexure-16 under Section VII of the Notice Inviting Tender
('N.I.T.').
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
8. It is stated that the technical evaluation committee
evaluated the technical bids of all the bidders on 21.10.2024
and uploaded the minutes of the meeting of the technical
committee on same day and declared all the 7 bidders to give
their technical presentation on 23.10.2024 and also
recommended for the opening of financial bids of all 7
qualified bidders on same day.
9. On 23.10.2024, all the 7 qualified bidders
presented their technical presentation before the Project
Appraisal Committee (PAC) and on the same day the PAC of
respondent no.2 carried out the financial evaluation of all the
bids in presence of the representatives of the five bidders. The
members of PAC opened the BOQ of all the technically
qualified bidders, it was revealed that the petitioner had quoted
a maximum discount of 77.06%. However, two bidders,
namely the consortium of M/s Hindustan Wellness Private
Limited and Sodani (R-4 & 5) quoted discount of 73.05% and
M/s POCT Services (R-6) quoted discount of 69.03%.
Therefore, the petitioner was found L1.
10. The participants who were L2 and L3 raised
objections regarding the petitioner's financial bid. They alleged
that the petitioner had quoted two different rates in its bid, they
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
submitted their objections via e-mail. The respondent no.2
withheld the declaration of petitioner as L1 bidder. Although
there was no request for clarification/representation from
respondent no.2, the petitioner proactively submitted a
clarification to the respondent no.2. The clarification provided
a detailed explanation of the provisions of the tender terms and
conditions and the petitioner's justifications. The respondent
no.2, however, did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner
to present its case or respond to any concerns raised by the
respondent nos.4 and 5, thereby the respondent no.2 violated
the foundational principles of fairness, transparency and non-
arbitrariness that are essential to any tendering process.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
11. In course of hearing, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners has taken this Court through the various
conditions prescribed in the tender document. Attention of this
Court has been drawn towards clause 9.5, 9.6 and 10.2 of the
N.I.T. (Section-II) to submit that as per clause 9.5 rates are to
be quoted in the financial bid format in online mode only. The
bidder would be required to download the financial bid file,
from e-tendering portal and quote the prices in prescribed
format before uploading it. The bidder shall quote the rates in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
all necessary formats. The bidders shall not rename the
financial bids files downloaded. It is submitted that on going
through the entire tender documents it may be found that at
some places the word 'rates' has been written but in fact in this
case the financial bid was to be submitted in terms of
'percentage of discount' which was in the financial bid format
as indicated in form of Annexure-16, Section VII to the N.I.T.
12. It is submitted that from clause 9.5, it is evident
that the bidders are required to download a specific financial
bid file, an excel sheet, available on the e-procurement portal,
complete it in the prescribed manner and upload the same.
According to the petitioners, this file corresponds to Annexure-
16, Section VII of the tender document. The submission is that
clause 9.5 nowhere states or even indirectly say that bidders
must quote their percentage of discount specifically in the
"rate" column of the BOQ tab on the e-procurement portal
interface itself. Instead, it emphasizes the submission of the bid
in the prescribed format, namely, the excel file provided for
download. It is submitted that tendering authority being fully
aware of the significance and sensitivity of the financial bid,
would have expressly specified any such dual entry
requirement (i.e. both excel file upload and portal based rate
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
entry) if that were intended. It is submitted that the requirement
of a single financial bid is under clause 9.5, clause 1.2.6, clause
10.4.1 and clause 10.4.2 of the Instructions to Bidders. Section
II of the tender document mandates that the bidder is
mandatorily required to quote the discount percentage in the
BOQ tab on the e-procurement portal, the 'rate' and 'total
amount' field present on e-procurement portal were not meant
for financial bid purpose, therefore, the figure '1' field in the
'rate' column cannot be taken as a submission of two distinct
financial bids justifying the rejection of the petitioners' bid.
13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that the difficulty faced by the petitioners in completing the
"Rate" field of the BOQ tab on the e-procurement portal was
the direct result of a structural ambiguity in the portal interface,
not isolated or self-induced error unique to the petitioners. The
field labelled "Rate" was undefined and unaccompanied by any
instructions or contextual reference within the tender
document. The tender required the quoting of a discount
percentage, yet the portal's web interface displayed a field for
"Rate" without clarification as to its legal relevance or
functional connection to the uploaded BOQ excel file. Learned
senior counsel for the petitioners submits that this ambiguity
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
was material, particularly given that "Rate" and "Discount
Percentage" are distinct financial terms.
14. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that the same understanding appears to have been
acknowledged within the tendering authority. Sri Rajesh
Kumar, Administrative Officer to whom the petitioners had
contacted on his mobile number which was officially published
in the tender notice was a member of PAC, he did not sign the
minutes dated 23.10.2024 of the PAC. This omission is notable
and strongly suggests that he disagreed with the treatment of
the petitioners' bid, which was consistent with his prior
clarification.
15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that in the multiple recent tenders conducted by the Society the
same practice has been followed. He has given some tender
details and name of the parties who quoted "1" in the rate field
of BOQ tab on the e-procurement portal but they were selected
and issued letters of intent ('LOI') after considering their
financial bid. In this connection, name of the party M/s Vatsa
Innovations Pvt. Ltd., M/s Yash Services, M/s Radhika Express
Service, and M/s Patliputra Printers and Stationery have been
mentioned with specific tender number in which they were
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
awarded the work based on their financial bid even though in
the 'rate' field of the BOQ tab on the e-procurement portal they
had either written "1" or "0". It is submitted that the insertion
of placeholder figures like "0" or "1" in the "Rate" field is a
well established procedural practice, routinely accepted by the
respondent nos. 2 and 3. These figures are not determinative of
the bidder's financial offer but are technical inputs necessary to
enable the BOQ file upload.
16. Learned senior counsel submits that the
respondent nos.2 and 3 have relied upon the so-called price bid
comparison sheet as the basis for evaluating the petitioner's
financial bid which is a fundamental flawed, procedurally
invalid and legally unsustainable. The section titled
"Evaluation of Tenders" (Section III), makes no reference
whatsoever to any price bid comparison sheet. It conclusively
establishes that such a document does not form part of the
prescribed bid documentation nor is it recognized as a tool for
bid evaluation under the tender framework. It holds no
probative or binding value as a representation of a bidder's
actual financial offer. It is submitted that the excel file aligned
with Annexure-16, Section VII of the I.T.B. The same
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
constitutes the only authorized format for financial bid
submission.
17. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs.
Nagpur Metro Rail Corp. Ltd. (2016 SCC Online Bom
5252), it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court held that the
reliance on extraneous documents or system generated reports,
not forming part of the official bid submission, would vitiate
the evaluation process. It is submitted that in the present case
price bid comparison sheet is not part of the bid submission,
nor does it meet the evidentiary standard necessary to override
or contradict the officially uploaded BOQ file. Therefore, any
reliance on it in determining the petitioners' financial offer is
patently misplaced.
18. In the writ application specific assertions have
been made that in the matter of evaluation of the petitioners'
financial bid, the respondent no.2 deviated from it's own
established tendering practice and applied its own subjective
and arbitrary criteria for evaluating the financial bids,
disregarding the terms and conditions of the tender. As a result,
the petitioners' financial bid was rejected in a manner that is
discriminatory and biased, seemingly to favour respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
nos.4 and 5. It is submitted that if the criteria applied to the
petitioners' bid were indeed fair and transparent, then all bids
submitted by the aforementioned bidders should have been
subjected to the same evaluation standards and consequently
rejected for similar irregularities. It is submitted that the
respondent no.2 has unfairly evaluated the bid and rejected it
without justifiable reasons and the decision may have been
influenced by undue pressure exerted by respondent nos.4 and
5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of BVG
India Limited Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2023 (6)
BLJ 656, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that
in the said case this Court has held respondent no.2 guilty of
acting unfairly and in contravention of the established norms
and standards that public institutions and authorities are
expected to adhere to. This judgment clearly reflects that
respondent no.2 is a habitual offender who may resort to
cancelling the present tender to safeguard it's own interests as
well as that of respondent nos.4 and 5. Reference has been
made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Reliance Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airports
Authority of India & Ors. (2006) 10 SCC 1 wherein it has
been held that every public authority has a duty to ensure
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
fairness in its dealings with the public, particularly in the
context of awarding public contracts. The authority must not
act arbitrarily or without following the prescribed norms.
19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC
517; Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
(2000) 2 SCC 617; N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar
Jain (2022) 6 SCC 127 and M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs.
Union of India (2012) 11 SCC 257. It is submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that scope of judicial review
in contractual matters is limited, but it can be invoked if the
action is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any deviation from the
terms and conditions of the tender document, unless duly
notified and justified, constitutes an irregularity and such
deviation may result in the annulment of the process. It has
been held in the case of M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. (supra) that
any additional or unforeseen requirement that is not clearly
stated in the tender document cannot be used for evaluation
purposes. Bidders must be judged only on the criteria specified
in the tender.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
20. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has also held a financial evaluation must be done in a manner
that benefits the public interest, especially where cost savings
or discounts are concerned. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport
Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 in which it has been
held that there should be no favouritism or bias in public
procurement. The process must be conducted fairly and
impartially.
Submissions on behalf of the Society and its
authority (Respondent nos.2 and 3).
21. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent nos.2 and 3. It is the stand of the respondent nos.2
and 3 that all the 7 bidders qualified in the technical bid and the
technical committee recommended to open the financial bids of
the qualified bidders. The PAC fixed a meeting on 23.10.2024
to open the financial bids of all the 7 technically qualified
bidders. On 23.10.2024, the financial bids of all the technically
qualified bidders were opened and the price bid comparison
sheet was downloaded in presence of all the bidders. The
evaluation is done on the basis of this comparison sheet itself
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
which is an inherent and essential feature of the E-procurement
portal. The comparison sheet is an auto-generated document by
the E-procurement that is automatically generated to facilitate
comparison of rates, in this case, maximum discount rate
quoted by each participating bidder to decide upon the lowest
bidder.
22. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General
representing the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that as per the
comparison sheet the petitioner no.3 i.e. the consortium of
petitioner nos.1 and 2 was found L7 which had quoted "1" in
the 'rate' column. However, when the Excel sheet was opened,
the percentage discount on the base price, quoted by the
petitioner no.3 was discovered as 77.06. It is submitted that
since the tender required offering the highest discount rate on
the base price i.e. prevailing on the CGHS rates which is the
common practice being followed in various States to offer
diagnostic services in government healthcare facilities, to
facilitate this and assist the bidders, an indicative format was
annexed to further clarify the process of offering the discount
rates, the tendering authorities attached Annexure-16, Section
VII in the N.I.T. which clearly states that it is merely an
indicative format for reference and actual financial bid is to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
submitted in the format available on the E-procurement portal.
It is submitted that an objection was raised by respondent no.3
and respondent no.5 through their letter dated 23.10.2024
submitted before the respondent no.2 on 24.10.2024 wherein
they have pointed out that two different prices have been
quoted by petitioner no.3 instead of a single bid and requested
the respondent no.2 to consider the bid of the petitioner no.3
invalid.
23. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the
participating bidders were asked to quote their financial bids
simply not in terms of the rates, but the bidders had to show the
percentage discount on base price for diagnostic tests that they
were ready to offer on the diagnostic tests. Annexure-R2/5
which is a corrigendum has been brought on the record. It is in
response to the queries raised during the pre-bid
meeting/submitted online. It is submitted that Annexure-R2/5
shows that the bidder/agency has to submit a financial quote
(percentage discount on CHGS Patna Rate for diagnostics tests
application as on last date of bid submission) as per the given
format. This format is only indicative for reference, actual
financial bid is to be submitted in the format available on e-
procurement portal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
24. It is submitted that Section II, Clause 1.2.6 of the
N.I.T. makes it mandatory for the bidder/agency to quote for
every line item in the financial bid format. If the bidder does
not quote for any line item in the financial bid format, then his
proposal will be disqualified. Much emphasis has been given
that so far as Annexure-16 is concerned, this format is only
indicative for reference to show how the financial bid was to
be quoted, as unlike any other tender simply quoting a rate was
not sufficient. The bidder had to quote the percentage discount
on the CGHS rates applicable in Patna as on the last date of bid
submission. It is submitted that Section II, Clause 7.1 of the
NIT clearly provided that a prospective bidder requiring any
clarification regarding terms and conditions, technical
specifications etc. Given in the tender documents may submit a
written request for clarifications to Sri Rajesh Kumar, B.A.S.,
Administrative Officer by post/email ID within one day of date
of pre-bid meeting and all correspondence with respect to this
tender must be done on this email ID only. The petitioners
should have sought clarification from the respondent
authorities on the email ID for this specific purpose only, in
such circumstance the respondent authorities would have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
replied the petitioners and such confusion would not have
arisen.
25. A para-wise reply of the statements made in
paragraph '8' of the writ application may be found in the
counter affidavit of the respondent nos.2 and 3. They have
denied the statements made in paragraph '8' as false and have
quoted Section II, Clause 7.1 of the NIT. In paragraph '8' of the
writ application, the petitioners have stated that the petitioners
had telephonically contacted the Administrative Officer and the
E-procurement officials. This fact, however, has not been
specifically denied in the counter affidavit. It is not stated that
Rajesh Kumar was not contacted by the petitioners and that he
had not informed that the 'Rate' column was only to be filled
up with any value.
26. As regards non-signing of the minutes dated
23.10.2024 by Sri Rajesh Kumar, B.A.S., Administrative
Officer, who was a member of the PAC, the respondents have
stated that the allegation of the petitioners that he had
intentionally refrained from signing of the proceeding of the
financial proceeding is nothing but a concoction of facts to suit
their narration. It is their stand that the quorum of the financial
evaluation of the meeting was complete and hence there was no
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
reason to delay uploading of the minutes in the meeting for the
financial bid. Overwriting on the dates by one of the members
of the committee while signing the proceeding, has also been
responded to by offering an explanation that overwriting in the
dates in the signature is a very common mistake that a human
being tends to make. There is no overwriting in the proceeding.
27. It is further stand of these respondents that once
the financial bid was opened and the price bid comparison
sheet was downloaded, the respondent authorities had
sufficient material to evaluate the financial bid and declare the
L1. In the next process the individual price break up of each of
the bidders was downloaded for sake of further affirmation.
However, it was only then that it was discovered that the
petitioners had filled two different rates in the financial bid,
therefore, it was a sufficient ground to declare the petitioners
unresponsive. While answering paragraph '18' of the writ
application, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have taken a plea that
each notice inviting tender is for a specific purpose and,
therefore, the terms and conditions of each of it is framed as
per the need. The notice inviting tenders mentioned by the
petitioners are for hiring of vehicles and for other different
needs, therefore, the method of quoting the financial bid in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
each of them were different and cannot be compared to each
other. It is stated that in the present tender simply quoting a rate
was not sufficient and, therefore, Annexure-16, Section VII of
N.I.T. has been given for indicative purposes so that the bidders
could understand that for this particular bid, percentage
discount in the base price had to be quoted. It is admitted by
respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the financial bid quoted by the
petitioners was 77.06% but the petitioners had quoted two
different rates.
28. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf
of the respondent no.4 and 5 i.e. the Hindustan Wellness
Private Limited and Dr. Khannas Pathcare Private Limited
who had jointly participated as Consortium of Hindustan
Wellness Private Limited (Lead Partner) and Dr. Khannas
Pathcare Private Limited (Partner 2). It is submitted that the
petitioners' bid contained conflicting discount rates on the e-
procurement portal. Initially, a 1% discount was displayed,
followed by an Excel download sheet showing a 77% discount
and later another downloaded sheet again showed 1%. The
financial bid in a format was provided merely for reference
purpose and the actual financial bid was to be submitted in a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
format available on e-procurement portal. The respondent no.4
has further submitted that the petitioners while submitting their
tender document failed to disclose about the ongoing criminal
proceedings against them related to fraudulent practices
including tender pooling which is clearly a non-compliance
with the eligibility criteria of the tender document. A true copy
of the FIR bearing No. E.O.W P.S. Case No.0011/2024 lodged
against the petitioners has been annexed as Annexure-R/4 with
the counter affidavit.
29. It is further submitted that the petitioners are
relying upon a photo claimed to be taken during the financial
evaluation of the bids in presence of the authorities which
shows their financial bid as "77" which is completely
doctored/fabricated and is submitted to misguide this Hon'ble
Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited
Vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking (BEST) and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online
SC 671 (paragraph 48) to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise
a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial
review in contractual or commercial matters. The Court is
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a
clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or
irrationality is made out.
30. The respondent no.5 who is a consortium partner
of respondent no.4 has chosen to file a separate counter
affidavit. On going through the counter affidavit of respondent
no.5, it appears that the respondent no.5 has participated in the
tender as a minority partner in the proposed consortium. After
issuance of LOI dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure-R5/B), the
respondent no.5 was informed to provide a separate
performance bank guarantee to the respondent no.2. It is stated
that at the time of providing the performance bank guarantee, it
was the first time that the respondent no.5 came in direct
contact with the respondent no.2 and uptill then, only the
respondent no.4 was communicating with the respondent no.2.
On 18.11.2024, the respondent no.4, on its own letter head, sent
a letter to the respondent no.2 indicating the Division of the
Territories amongst the partners, which was also signed by the
respondent no.5. The Division of the Territories amongst the
respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 was duly accepted by the
respondent no.2 vide letter dated 25.12.2024 (Annexure-R5/D).
Thereafter, the respondent no.5 purchased the necessary
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
machines for starting the pathology labs in allotted districts but
those were not opened or operated in view of the orders of the
Court.
Rejoinder of the petitioners
31. The petitioners have responded to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3. It is the
stand of the petitioners that the entire section on evaluation of
tenders makes no reference to a price bid comparison sheet.
The PAC acted beyond its authority by evaluating the
petitioners' financial bid at its own discretion, rather than
adhering to the explicit terms of the tender document. The
arbitrary evaluation of the petitioners' financial bid by
respondent nos. 2 and 3 was aimed at providing an unjust
advantage to the respondent nos.4 and 5. There is deliberate
deviation from the prescribed evaluation criteria which further
highlights the unfair and arbitrary treatment of the petitioners'
financial bid.
32. It is submitted that the Annexure-16, Section VII
of N.I.T. which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have provided as
R2/2 in their counter affidavit is also factually incorrect. The
document attached as Annexure R2/2 is an Excel sheet named
as "29801" Financial Bid downloaded from the e-procurement
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
portal and not the actual Annexure-16 from the tender
document. The correct Annexure-16 is clearly available on
page 89 of the original tender document. By submitting this
incorrect Annexure, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have again
attempted to mislead this Court.
33. It is submitted that the instructions in Annexure-
16, read in conjunction with clause 9.5 of the tender document
clearly outline that the bidder must download the financial bid
file from the e-procurement portal, enter their quoted discount
rate in the prescribed format and then upload it. It is submitted
that the repeated assertion of the respondent nos.2 and 3 in the
counter affidavit and in paragraph '19' of their counter affidavit
claiming that Annexure- '16' is merely an indicative format and
that the actual financial bid format is available on the e-
procurement portal is a misrepresentation of facts and an
attempt to mislead the Court. The tender document specifically
says that the bidder was required to mention only the
percentage discount on the base price for diagnostic tests.
34. It is submitted that the e-procurement portal's
format requires the bidder to put a "Rate" in the blank field,
with no reference to the required "percentage discount.". This
part of the format was meant for those tenders which would
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
have required quoting of 'rates' and not the 'percentage of
discount'. In this tender, the only file that clearly asks for the
percentage discount is the excel file downloaded from the e-
procurement portal, which mirrors the structure of Annexure-
16, Section VII of the N.I.T. In fact the stand of the Society is
very clear that for this particular bid the percentage of discount
in the base price had to be quoted in the actual format,
indicated by Annexure 16 Section VII of the N.I.T.
35. It is submitted that the petitioner no.3 had quoted
4% higher discount than the other bidder and this deliberate
rejection of the petitioners' bid by the respondent nos.2 and 3
may cause a significant loss to the government of Bihar as the
petitioners' more competitive offer was ignored in favour of
less favourable terms.
36. Referring to Annexure-P/13, learned senior
counsel for the petitioners points out that this the financial bid
format which is to be filled in by the agency/bidder. This
document clearly mentions that the financial selection of the
bidder/agency shall be based on "who quotes the highest
percentage discount on the base price for diagnostic tests" (L1),
provided that the bidder meets all the eligibility criteria as
specified in Section V of the tender document. (underline is
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
mine). It is submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner
no.3 meets all the eligibility criteria and was duly qualified by
the technical bid committee. The highest percentage discount
on the base price is required to be filled up in this document
which the petitioner no.3 has rightly done and is giving the
highest discount percentage, still it's rejection smacks foul play
in action.
37. It is submitted that on a bare perusal of the copy
of the agreement executed between the society and the
consortium of respondent nos. 4 and 5, it would appear that in
paragraph 1.2 of the agreement the description of services and
percentage discount have been shown which is adjactly as
required to be filled up in the actual financial bid format as
indicated vide Annexure-16, Section VII of the N.I.T. It makes
it clear that financial bid was to be submitted in the actual
format which was indicated by providing Annexure-16 in
Section VII of the N.I.T. It is further submitted that the
consortium of respondent nos.4 and 5 (jointly called the
selected agency and service provider) it would appear from the
counter affidavit of respondent nos.5 that after signing of the
agreement with the society the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have on
their own divided the different districts as if they would be
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
working separately in both the districts. The respondent no.2
was informed of the division of the districts between the two
consortium partners but no objection has been raised to the
same. It further shows how the respondent no.2 is allowing all
kinds of deviations from the tender conditions and the
agreement. Till date no SPV has been formed by respondent
no.4 and 5.
38. The petitioners have also responded to the counter
affidavit of the respondent no.4. While reiterating their stand
the petitioners have denied the statements made in paragraph
12 and 13 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.4. It is
stated that the allegation that petitioners failed to submit details
of the criminal proceedings is entirely untrue, as can be verified
from the petitioners' bid documents, which were the basis for
petitioners' technical qualification. Annexure '6' has been duly
submitted and the same has been shown 'submitted' in the
Technical bid comparison chart (Annexure-1 to the Minutes of
Meeting dated 21.10.2024 of the Technical Committee). This
baseless claim raises serious concerns regarding the conduct of
respondent no.4 as they have made serious allegations without
any evidence to support their assertions.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
Stand of the Respondent No.6
39. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent no.6 i.e. POCT Services. Learned senior counsel
submits in his written notes of submissions that the selection of
the consortium comprising respondent nos.3 and 4 is ex-facie
in contravention of the eligibility criteria prescribed under
clause 2.4, Section V of the NIT. The said consortium does not
meet the minimum technical and financial eligibility
requirements, particularly with respect to the mandated number
of operational hubs and spokes and relevant experience in
delivering large scale pathology services under public health
programms. It is submitted that in the case of Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft & Siemens Ltd. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC 288, it has been held that
awarding tenders to technically or financially ineligible bidders
can be challenged if it violates public interest. Learned senior
counsel for the respondent no.6 has pointed out that a separate
writ petition being CWJC No.1377 of 2025 has been filed by
respondent no.6 in which the award of contract to the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 has been challenged on various
grounds. It is his submissions that because these two writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
petitions are being heard simultaneously i.e. one after another
he may refer the pleadings already available in the connected
writ petition on this point.
40. As regards the petitioners, it is submitted that
while submitting the bid the petitioner has not disclosed the
fact that an FIR bearing EOW P.S. Case No.11 of 2024 dated
27.03.2024 under Sections 420, 409/120B and Section 13(1)(a)
and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
registered against Sunaina Tiwary and Jitendra Tiwary,
Directors of M/s Science House Medical Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh. In course of his submissions, Mr. Mrigank
Mauli, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.6 submits
that non-disclosure of material facts such as pending criminal
cases can be a valid ground for rejection of bid, however, it is
not denied that in the present case the respondent no.2 has not
rejected the Technical bid of the petitioners on the ground of
non-disclosure of any pending criminal case against the
petitioners.
Consideration
41. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the pleadings available on the record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
42. This writ application has been filed by the
petitioners questioning the decision of the PAC of respondent
no.2 taken in its meeting held on 23.10.2024 which has been
uploaded on 30.10.2024 on the portal of respondent no.2.
Prayer is to quash the decision of the PAC which declares the
petitioner no.3 L7 and the consortium of R 4 and R 5 as L1.
The allegations are of arbitrariness in the decision making by
deviating from the tender terms and conditions, past practices
and discrimination ignoring the public interest. There is a
specific assertion that the respondent no.2 has ousted the
petitioners despite the petitioners offering highest discount
percentage, only to favour respondent nos.3 and 4.
Relevant Clauses of the N.I.T.
43. We would first refer certain clauses from the NIT
Reference No.:-09/SHSB/Pathology Service/2024-25
(Annexure-P/2 series). Clause 1.2.4, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 9.5 and 10.4
which have been referred to by the parties are contained in
Section II, 1 General Instructions. Those are quoted hereunder
for a ready reference:-
"1.2.4 Submission of bids: Bids are to be submitted
through online mode to the e-Procurement Portal
https://eproc2.bihar.gov.in at a time for following
activities submission of technical bid & the other at
the time of submission of Financial bid before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
prescribed one while uploading documents for date &
time as mentioned in Clause 5 in Notice Inviting
Tender (NIT) using the Digital Signature Certificate
(DSC). The documents will get encrypted
(transformed into non-readable formats).
1.2.6 The bidder/agency shall have to quote for every
line item in the Financial Bid Format. If the bidder
doesn't quote for any line item in the Financial Bid
format, then his proposal will be disqualified.
1.2.7 The bidder/agency has to quote the maximum
percentage discount on the 'Base Price' for diagnostics
tests in the financial proposal (please refer Annexure-
12 for the list of diagnostic tests with base price). The
quoted rate should be firm and inclusive of all the
factors like renovation/modification of space,
Equipments, Computers, Reagents, LIMS, HR,
Internet Connection, Printer, Barcode Scanner, Pre-
printed barcode sticker/Barcoded Vacutainers, Printer
Cartridges, Stationery, Consumables, Sample Storage
equipment, Centrifuge, ESR Tubes, Neubauer
chamber, supportive infrastructure, operational and
maintenance cost for the project, all applicable taxes
and duties, excluding Goods & Services Tax (GST).
This shall be quoted in the online mode only. GST if
applicable, will be paid by the State Health Society,
Bihar (SHSB) or the authority decided by the SHSB
as per the prevailing rates/rules. Please refer
"Annexure-16" for information regarding Financial
Bid.
9.5 Rates are to be quoted in the financial Bid format
in online mode only. The financial bid submitted in
any other format will be treated as non-responsive.
The bidder will be required to download the financial
bid file, from e-tendering portal and quote the prices
in prescribed format before uploading it. The bidder
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
shall quote the rates in all necessary formats. The
bidder(s) shall not rename the financial bid files
downloaded.
10.4 The financial bids of bidders whose technical
bids are found technically responsive and comply
with the bid documents will only be considered for
financial evaluation. The date of opening of financial
bids shall be communicated to such bidders, who are
technically qualified."
44. Section III of the NIT provides the manner in
which the evaluation is to be done. Clause 8 under Section III
which deals with the award of contract provides in clause 8.2
as under:-
"8.2 The final selection of the agency/bidder shall be
the one 'who quotes the highest percentage discount
on the base price for tests'(L1) subject to all
conditions as laid down in the tender documents,
provided the bidder meets the eligibility criteria as per
Section V."
45. Section V contains the eligibility criteria. Since
the respondent no.6 has taken a plea that the respondent nos. 3
and 4 did not possess the eligibility criteria no.2.4 under
Section V, in order to appreciate the same, we reproduce clause
2.4 which is the eligibility criteria for bidders and the
mandatory documents which are required to be submitted by
the bidders:-
"Section V (2.4)
S.No. Eligibility criteria for Bidders Mandatory Documents
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
2.4 The bidder (in case of sole Self-attested copy of
bidder) should have an Experience Certificate issued
experience of conducting a by client (Government
minimum 20 lakh pathology tests Private) along with work
per year during the last 3 years Order/Mou/Contract/Agreem
(FY 2021-22, Fy 2022-23 and ent evidencing the count of
2023-24). pathology tests conducted per
In case of consortium, either one year during the last 3 years
of the consortium members (FY 2021-22, FY 2022-23
should have the experience of and FY 2023-24).
conducting a minimum 20 lakh
pathology tests per year during
the last 3 years (FY 2021-22, FY
2022-23 and FY 2023-24).
46. As per Section V, clause 3, before opening of the
financial proposals the bidders shall have to make a technical
presentation and demonstration of the proposed solution,
detailing the understanding of the project, project
implementation plan, Human Resource Development Plan,
Institutional Mechanism for Training and Training
methodology, SLA Management Strategy, Strategy for
fulfilling KPIs, Use of LIMS and Latest IT Technology,
innovations and other technical aspect of the proposal in front
of the Tender Evaluation Committee appointed by State Health
Society, Bihar. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had
participated in the presentation before the tender evaluation
committee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
Format of the Financial Bid-Percentage of
discount on the base price
47. The N.I.T. contained Annexure-1 to Annexure-16
under section VII. For purpose of this case, we are concerned
with Annexure-16. Since this is the most important document
which is required to be looked into and considered, we think it
proper to reproduce Annexure-16 hereunder:-
"INFORMATION REGARDING FINANCIAL BID
1. The bidder/agency has to submit a financial quote
(Percentage discount on Base Price) as per below format. This format is
only indicative for reference, actual financial bid is to be submitted in the
format available on e-procurement portal:
Description of Services Percentage Discount on Base Price for
Diagnostics Tests
In Percentage (%)
Providing Pathology Services in
Hub & Spoke model in the State
Inclusive of all the factors like
renovation or modification of the
space, provision of Equipment,
Computers, Reagents, LIMS
(Laboratory Information
Management System), Human
Resources, Internet Connection,
Printer, Barcode Scanner, Pre-
printed barcode stickers, Printer
Cartridges, Stationery,
Consumables, Vacutainers/Syringes
& Vials, Sample Storage equipment,
Centrifuge, ESR Tubes, Neubauer
chamber, Ancillary items,
supportive infrastructure,
operational and maintenance cost to
provide pathology test report within
Turnaround Time fulfilling all the
conditions mentioned in the tender
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
document.)
2. The quoted financial bid shall be firm and
inclusive of all the factors like renovation or
modification of the space, provision of Equipment,
Computers, Reagents, LIMS (Laboratory Information
Management System), Human Resources, Internet
Connection, Printer, Barcode Scanner, Pre-printed
barcode stickers, Printer Cartridges, Stationery,
Consumables, Vacutainers, Sample Storage equipment,
Centrifuge, ESR Tubes, Neubauer chamber, Ancillary
items, supportive infrastructure, operational and
maintenance cost for the project, all applicable taxes,
and duties, excluding Goods & Services Tax (GST).
GST if applicable, will be paid by SHSB or the
authorities decided by SHSB, as per the prevailing
rates/rules.
3. The financial bid has to be submitted in
"online mode" only, and as per the terms and conditions
mentioned in the tender document.
4. The final selection of the agency/bidder shall
be based on "who quotes the highest percentage
discount on the Base Price for Diagnostic Tests" (11).
provided that the bidder meets all the eligibility criteria
as specified in Section V of the tender document."
Requirement to quote percentage of discount in the format
as indicated in Annexure-16, Section VII of the N.I.T.
48. In the aforementioned background, the
contentions of the parties are to be tested. It is the case of the
petitioners that in terms of clause 9.5 under Section II ITB the
rates are to be quoted in the financial bid format in online mode
only. The financial bid submitted in any other format will be
treated as non-responsive. This financial bid file is to be
downloaded from e-tendering portal and the percentage of
discount is to be quoted in the actual format available in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
tender document which corresponds to Annexure 16 of Section
VII of the N.I.T. This clause also says that the bidder shall
quote the rates in all necessary formats and the bidders shall
not rename the financial bid files downloaded. On a bare
reading of this clause, to this Court it is crystal clear that in the
first very line it is provided that the rates are to be quoted in the
financial bid format in online mode only. The subsequent line
that ' the bidders shall quote the 'rates' in all necessary formats
is not in the context of this particular bid. In this particular
tender, the petitioner no.3 was required to quote percentage of
discount in the financial bid format. It was required to be
downloaded by the bidders. What was required to be
downloaded was the financial bid file, from e-tendering portal
and to quote the percentage of discount in the prescribed
format before uploading it.
49. In this case, Annexure-16 under Section VII of the
N.I.T. is the format which has been provided as indicative for
reference but the bidders have been specifically instructed to
submit their financial quote (percentage discount on base price)
as per the given format available on the e-procurement portal.
There is no difficulty in understanding the instructions
contained in Annexure-16 under Section VII of the N.I.T. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
respondent no.2 has indicated Annexure-16 as the format for
reference in which the financial quotes in terms of percentage
discount on base price is to be submitted, though it should be
filled up in the actual format and upload it.
50. There is no denial of the assertion of the
petitioners in the writ petition that PAC members individually
opened the uploaded BOQ of all the technically qualified
bidders which revealed that the petitioner no.3 had quoted a
maximum discount of 77.06% (Seventy-seven point zero six
percent) in the technical bid format but the petitioner no.3 has
been ousted on the ground that the petitioner no.3 had
submitted two different rates in its bid.
General Instructions - applicability of Clause 1.2.6
and 1.2.7 discussed
51. On going through the general provisions under
Section II of N.I.T., this Court finds that the general
instructions have been formulated/ couched in such a manner
that certain clauses thereunder may apply to a tender which
requires quoting of 'rates of every line item'. For example,
clause 1.2.6 instructs the bidder/agency to quote for every line
item in the Financial Bid Format. This clause cannot be applied
in a case of present nature where the bidder/agency has to
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
quote the maximum percentage discount on the base price. For
this, tender clause 1.2.7 of the general instructions, the
bidder/agency has to quote the maximum percentage discount
on the base price. This also refers to Annexure '12' which
contains the list of diagnostic tests with base price. This Court,
therefore, finds that the emphasis given by the Society and the
private respondents that the petitioner no.3 had to quote for
every line item in the present tender, ignores the actual position
insofar as the present tender relates to. It requires quoting the
maximum percentage discount on the base price. There is no
'line item' for which the financial bid is to be submitted. In
fact, we find support from the stand of the Society in its
counter affidavit where in paragraph XVI, R-2 and R-3 have
stated inter-alia that ".........in the present tender simply quoting
a rate was not sufficient and, therefore, Annexure-16, Section
VII of the N.I.T. has been given for indicative purposes so that
biders could understand that for this particular, percentage
discount in the base price is to be quoted...."
52. To this Court, it is crystal clear that even Society
understands that this particular bid requires quoting of
percentage of discount on the base price in the format as
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
indicated by Annexure 16, Section VII of N.I.T. The 'rate'
column has no contextual relevance in this bid.
Discrimination noticed in the matter of consideration by
deviating from past practices - conduct of the Society
discussed
53. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos.2 and 3 it is not denied that earlier the same
PAC had awarded contracts for the hiring of transport services
to transport drugs, consumables, family planning commodities
and other supplies in the State of Bihar under Reference
No.16/SHSB/Drugcell/SCM/2024-25 to M/s Radhika Express
Service and issued Purchase order on 28.10.2024. The
petitioners have specifically stated that upon reviewing the e-
procurement portal of Bihar it is evident that the
aforementioned bidder/awardee had quoted a rate of "0"
whereas according to the financial bid (BOQ) requirements the
bidder was required to mention four separate rates. However,
only a single rate was quoted in the e-procurement portal.
Despite quoting "0" on the e-procurement portal, M/s Radhika
Express Service was awarded the contract. The PAC seemingly
regarded this omission as a minor procedural infirmity. The
evaluation of financial bid was conducted solely on the basis of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
the financial bid (BOQ) uploaded on the portal. It is further not
denied by the respondent no.2 and 3 that the tender for
selection of agency for hiring of vehicles in State Health
Society, Bihar was awarded to M/s Yash Services on
01.07.2024. The said bidder/awardee had quoted a rate of "1"
whereas according to the financial bid (BOQ) requirements, the
bidder was required to mention eight separate rates. However,
only a single rate was quoted in the e-procurement portal
which appears to be in violation of the tender provisions. This
was again taken as mere procedural standard practice not
affecting the financial evaluation. The PAC seems to have
regarded this omission as a minor procedural infirmity and the
evaluation of financial bids has been conducted solely on the
basis of the financial bid (BOQ) uploaded on the Portal. An
another example stated by the petitioners, which has not been
denied by the respondent no.2, is the tender for rate contract of
stationery and other items for State Health Society, Bihar
awarded to M/S Patliputra Printers and Stationery. According
to the petitioners, the said bidder had quoted a rate of "0"
whereas according to the financial bid (BOQ) requirements, the
bidder was required to mention three hundred (300) separate
rates. However, only a single rate was quoted in the e-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
procurement portal which appears to be in violation of the
tender provisions. The petitioner has submitted that again the
respondent no.2 treated it a mere procedural standard practice,
not affecting the financial evaluation.
54. This Court finds that in response to the assertions
of the petitioners giving the aforesaid manner of evaluation of
tender by the PAC in paragraph 18(i) (ii) and (iii) of the writ
application, the respondent no.2 has made an ornamental
statement that such allegations by the petitioners are false and
denied in toto. All that is pleaded by respondent no.2 in
response to the assertions of the petitioners is that each NIT is
for a specific purpose and, therefore, the terms and conditions
of each of it is framed as per the need. The respondent no.2 has
not shown enough courage to deny the facts that when the
aforementioned bidders mentioned "0" and "1" on the e-
procurement portal, their financial bid evaluation was not
rejected by respondent no.2. In other words, they were awarded
work by treating the said mention of "0" and "1" on the e-
procurement portal only a mere procedural practice.
Member of the PAC not signing the minutes dated
23.10.2024 of the PAC
55. The petitioner has specifically stated that the PAC
of respondent no.2 held its meeting on 23.10.2024. Mr. Rajesh
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
Kumar, Administrative Officer, State Health Society, Bihar has
not signed the minutes of the meeting which would be evident
from Annexure-P/10 to the writ application. It is his assertion
that non-signing of the minutes by Sri Rajesh Kumar only
raises a serious concern regarding functioning and prevailing
procedural lapses in the working procedures of State Health
Society, Bihar. This raises the question of either intentionally
refraining Mr. Rajesh Kumar from signing the minutes of the
proceedings knowing that the reason of rejection is unjustified
and biased or his signature was inadvertently omitted due to the
authorities' haste in uploading the minutes unduly favouring
the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar was the officer
in charge of the entire tender process and any clarifications,
inquiries or correspondence related to the tender could have
reasonably been sought from him. The statement of the
petitioners in this regard may be found in paragraph 16 (ii) of
the writ petition.
56. In response to the said assertions of the
petitioners, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have not satisfactorily
answered and denied the same. According to respondent no.2
the quorum of the financial evaluation of the meeting was
complete and hence, there was no reason to delay uploading of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
minutes of the meeting for the financial bid and this in no case
violates the principles of natural justice. This Court is unable to
subscribe this statement of petitioner nos.2 and 3 by any
cannon of justice. This seems to be a completely misplaced
statement. The question of quorum of the meeting does not
arise in the present case. It is not that Sri Rajesh Kumar,
Administrative Officer, who was in-charge of the tender was
not present in the PAC meeting held on 23.10.2024. A bare
perusal of Annexure-P/10 to the writ application would show
that his name is mentioned at serial no.5 and he has been
shown present in the meeting of PAC. The meeting was held on
23.10.2024, signature of some of the members were obtained
on 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2004 but why the signature of the one
of the members Sri Rajesh Kumar was not obtained. It is an
admitted position reflecting from the minutes that Sri Rajesh
Kumar, Administrative Officer, State Health Society, Bihar has
not signed the minutes. This speaks a lot. The explanation
offered by respondent no.2 stands nowhere. The sanctity of the
minutes of the meeting dated 23.10.2024, in absence of any
plausible reason would be open to doubt as to what were going
on between 23.10.2024 and 29.10.2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
57. At this stage, we further find that clause 1.2.7
under Section II (ITB) reads as under:-
"1.2.7 The bidder/agency has to quote the maximum
percentage discount on the 'Base Price' for diagnostics
tests in the financial proposal (please refer Annexure-12
for the list of diagnostic tests with base price). The quoted
rate should be firm and inclusive of all the factors like
renovation/modification of space, Equipments, Computers,
Reagents, LIMS, HR, Internet Connection, Printer,
Barcode Scanner, Pre-printed barcode sticker/Barcoded
Vacutainers, Printer Cartridges, Stationery, Consumables,
Sample Storage equipment, Centrifuge, ESR Tubes,
Neubauer chamber, supportive infrastructure, operational
and maintenance cost for the project, all applicable taxes
and duties, excluding Goods & Services Tax (GST). This
shall be quoted in the online mode only. GST if applicable,
will be paid by the State Health Society, Bihar (SHSB) or
the authority decided by the SHSB as per the prevailing
rates/rules. Please refer "Annexure-16" for information
regarding Financial Bid."
58. Apparently, clause 1.2.7 also refers "Annexure-
16", Section VII of N.I.T. for information regarding financial
bid. Clause 1.2.7 read together with clause 9.5 and 10.4 under
Section II would leave no iota of doubt that the financial bids
of the bidders whose technical bids are found technically
responsive and complied with the bid documents, will only be
considered for financial evaluation.
Findings with regard to the not fulfiling the
eligibility criteria - false entry in Technical Bid comparison
sheet to favour the consortium of R-4 and R-5
59. At this stage, we take note of the submissions on
behalf of the respondent no.6 that respondent nos.4 and 5 are
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
not fulfilling the eligibility criteria no.2.4 under Section V of
the N.I.T. In C.W.J.C. No.1377 of 2025 (POCT Services Vs.
State of Bihar & Others), this very criterion has been discussed.
This Court has, upon a detail discussion based on the pleadings
available in the said case, recorded in paragraph '56' to '61' of
the judgment as under:-
"56. Having gone through the
aforementioned pleadings, we find that clause 2.4 of
Section V prescribes a mandatory document, in fact in
paragraph 30 of their supplementary counter affidavit,
respondent nos. 4 to 7 have themselves termed this
document a mandatory document, it is crystal clear that
respondent no. 8 had not provided the self-attested
copies of experience certificate issued by client
(government/public) along with work
order/MoU/agreement/contract) evidencing the count
of pathology tests conducted per year. Initially, neither
respondent nos. 4 to 7 nor respondent no. 8 specifically
answered the paragraph '22' and '23' of the writ
application but having noticed that their statements are
not specifically answering the assertions of the
petitioner, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 have come out
with supplementary counter affidavit in which they
have for the first time talked about submission of a
certificate of Chartered Accountant along with
MoU/work order/agreement which satisfies the PAC.
In course of hearing, we were given to peruse the
certificate of Chartered Accountant and at this stage, it
has been detected that this certificate was not along
with MoU/work order/agreement of any of the clients
(government/private). It is only a certificate of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
Chartered Accountant showing the financial
transactions carried out by respondent no. 8 which is
another eligibility requirement.
57. To this Court, it has transpired that the
Respondent No. 8 and Respondent No. 9 had not
submitted the mandatory documents in terms of clause
2.4 of Section V of Instructions to Bidders (I.T.B.) but
in the technical bid comparative chart, they were
wrongly and falsely shown to have submitted these
documents...."
58. In the technical bid comparative chart and
evaluation sheet (Annexure '1') which is enclosed with
the minutes of the Meeting (MOM) of the Technical
Committee held on 21.10.2024 (Annexure 'P/8'), the
documents submitted by the bidders in terms of
requirement as pointed out under clause 9.6 of Section
V of I.T.B have been shown in the tabular chart. A
close perusal of the tabular chart would show that as
regards the mandatory documents under clause 2.4 of
Section V of the N.I.T. read with clause 9.6.10, the
same have been shown "Lead Partner submitted
Partner 2 submitted". It means, the Respondent Nos. 8
and 9 both are said to have submitted self-attested copy
of experience certificate issued by the client
(Government/Private) along with work
order/MoU/Contract/Agreement evidencing the count
of pathology tests during the last three years (FY 2021-
22, FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24). Clause 9.6 says that
required evaluation criterion must be submitted. This
requirement is duly mentioned in sub-clause 9.6.10 of
clause 9.6 of Section V of I.T.B.
As recorded above, in fact, the required
documents were not submitted by Respondent No. 8
and Respondent No. 9. This Court has, therefore, no
hesitation in recording that this is a clear case of giving
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
undue favour to Respondent No. 8 and Respondent no.
9 by falsifying the records.
59. The Chartered Accountant certificate
showing that the bidder (in case of consortium) have a
cumulative minimum average annual turnover of INR
50 crores from Pathology services during the FY 2020-
21, FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 and that the lead
partner on the consortium must have a minimum
annual average turnover of INR 25 crores while
another partner must have a minimum annual average
turnover of INR 12.5 crores from pathology services
during the aforesaid Fys, is a separate requirement in
term of sub-clause 9.6.7 under clause 9.6, Section V
(N.I.T.).
It is evident that Chartered Accountant
Certificate is required in terms of clause 9.6.7 whereas
experience certificate in term of clause 2.4 is another
mandatory document under clause 9.6.10.
60. There is nothing on the record that in terms
of clause 18 of Section I (NIT) or clause 5.1 of
Section II Tender Inviting Authority i.e. the State
Health Society ever amended clause 2.4 or 9.6 under
Section V (I.T.B.). These clauses remained as they
stood, hence, the bidders were obliged to fulfill the
required evaluation criteria. The words 'must be
submitted' clearly show that the documents were to be
mandatorily submitted.
(Emphasis is mine)
Clause 10.2 of Section V of the I.T.B. only strengthens
the views of this Court. Clause 10.2 reads as under:-
"10.2 Technical Evaluation of the Bid will be
done on the basis of technical qualification criteria and
documents mentioned (TECHNICAL BID) in
Mandatory Documents Link present in the e-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
Procurement Portal https://eproc2.bihar.gov.in falling
which the bid will not be considered for technical
evaluation."
61. From the statements made in paragraph
'35' of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is
evident that the respondent nos. 4 to 7 are coming out
with a cover to provide a shield to respondent nos. 8
and 9. According to respondent nos. 4 to 7, the tender
document (NIT) did not prescribe any specific format
to count the test conducted specially for companies
that handle millions of individual pathology test, like
retail labs. This cannot be the stand of respondent nos.
4 to 7 on the face of Clause 2.4 clearly providing that a
self-attested copy of experience certificate issued by
the client (government/private) along with MoU/ order
of contract document evidencing the count of
pathology tests were to be provided. Not prescribing
any specific format to show the count of test has been
cited by respondent nos. 4 to 7 as a rescuing factor for
respondent no.8. Further, it is evident that handling of
millions of individual pathology tests like retail labs by
respondent nos. 8 and 9 would not have made them
eligible in terms of Clause 2.4. The provision is very
clear in Clause 2.4. It should be experience certificate
issued by the client (government/private) with work
order/MoU/contract/agreement. This tender was not for
those who were handling millions of individual
pathology tests like a retail lab. We agree with the
submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that respondent nos. 8 and 9 might have an
experience of carrying out individual pathology test
over a crore but that would not make them eligible in
terms of Clause 2.4. Here, we see a clear attempt by
respondent nos. 4 to 7 to cover up the fact that
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
respondent no. 8 had not provided the required
mandatory document in terms of Clause 2.4."
60. We have quoted the aforementioned paragraphs
from the judgment of this Court in CWJC No.1377 of 2025 to
place on record that in the writ application preferred by POCT
Services, this Court has found that the present respondent nos.
4 and 5 who were respondent nos.8 and 9 in the said writ
application could not provide the mandatory documents to
satisfy the eligibility in terms of clause 2.4 of Section V (ITB).
61. At this stage, we find it appropriate to further
place on record that in CWJC No.1377 of 2025 when this
Court noticed that respondent nos.8 and 9 (in present case
respondent nos.4 and 5) were declared eligible in the technical
bid despite their not submitting the mandatory documents in
terms of clause 2.4, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General
representing the Society took a plea that the Society had a
power to relax the condition. As regards the said submission,
this Court has recorded in paragraphs '62' and '63' of its
judgment in CWJC No.1377 of 2025 as under:-
"62. It is because of this that towards the
end of his submissions, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned
Advocate General has submitted that the State Health
Society has power to relax the conditions, therefore, in
public interest if the condition as contained in Clause
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
2.4 has been relaxed to some extent, this Court need not
interfere with the decision of the Society in declaring
respondent no. 8 a successful bidder. We would
respectfully differ with the opinion of the learned
Advocate General on this point. At first instance, there
is no decision on record to do away with clause 2.4. No
amendment as respect clause 2.4 and 9.6 has been
notified by Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. It is not the stand of
R-4 to R-7 that they have consciously ignored/relaxed
the eligibility criterion for R-8 and R-9. In fact the R-4
to R-7 have shown R-8 and R-9 fulfilling the said
criterion by making false entries in the Technical Bid
comparison sheet. Thus, this stand of exercise of power
to relax the eligibility criterion does not reflect in the
decision making process. This does not conform to the
privilege-of-participation principle as laid down in
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport
Authority of India reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489.
Moreover, if the condition as contained in Clause 2.4
would have been relaxed for respondent no.8, we find
no reason that why this Society would not exercise the
same discretion judiciously that too in public interest in
respect of respondent no. 10 who has in fact submitted
a financial bid which is providing advantage of over
four percent of higher percentage of discount. If the
discretion would have been applied in favour of the
respondent no.10 in the given facts of the case, it would
have benefitted the public exchequer. This has also an
element of public interest. In fact, when this plea was
taken by learned Advocate General, we specifically
called upon him to make a statement as to why the
same relaxation/exercise of discretion was not done in
favour of respondent no.10 who had offered four
percent more discount that would go in several crores
of rupees and that would be ultimately beneficial to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
State exchequer and to the public at large. We could not
get any satisfactory response to this query.
63. In view of the discussions made
hereinabove, we find that the respondent nos. 4 to 7
have ignored Clause 2.4 and 9.6.10 under Section V of
the NIT and allowed respondent nos. 8 and 9 to qualify
for the financial bid and in financial bid, selected the
consortium of Respondent No. 8 and Respondent No. 9
even as they are not offering the highest discount. We
have already recorded as to how wrong and false
entries were made in the technical bid comparison chart
(Annexure '1' to 'P/17' of the writ petition) in order to
favour Respondent Nos. 8 and 9."
62. In the light of the aforementioned discussions, we
would take a glance over some judicial pronouncements on the
subject. A number of case laws have been cited on behalf of the
parties to strengthen their submissions. In the case of Jagdish
Mandal Vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, in paragraph
'22', the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is
intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and malafides. Its purpose is to
check whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not
to check whether choice or decision is 'sound'. When the
power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to
tenders or award of contracts, certain special features
should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial
transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are
essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and
natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to
award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest,
courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review,
interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in
assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
power of judicial review will not be permitted to be
invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public
interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or
contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a
civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with
imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry,
to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self,
and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of
judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences,
either interim or final, may hold up public works for years,
or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and
may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court
before interfering in tender or contractual matters in
exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself
the following questions :
i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by
the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone.
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so
arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : 'the
decision is such that no responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could
have reached.'
ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no
interference under Article 226. Cases involving black-
listing or imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of state largesse
(allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships
and franchises) stand on a different footing as they
may require a higher degree of fairness in action."
63. In the case of Municipal Corporation Ujjain vs.
BVG India Ltd. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 462, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has taken the following view in paragraph '63' as
under:-
"63. As aforementioned, unless the Court concludes that
the decision-making process or the decision taken by the
authority bristles with mala fides, arbitrariness, or
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
perversity, or that the authority has intended to favour
someone, the constitutional court will not interfere with the
decision-making process or the decision."
64. In the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the Court should not interfere in the matters of tenders
unless substantial public interest was involved or the transactions
was malafide. The Court must proceed with great caution while
exercising their discretionary powers and should exercise it's
powers only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on
making out of a legal point.
65. In the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. SJVN
Thermal (P) Ltd. reported in (2020) 1 PLJR 813, a learned writ
court (authored by one of us: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) has
discussed the case laws on the nature and scope of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned writ
court has taken note of the judgments vis Jagdish Mandal (supra)
and in the case of Meerut Development Authority vs.
Association of Management Studies reported in (2009) 6 SCC
171. In the case of Meerut Development Authority (supra) their
Lordships held that "... in the matter of award of contracts the
government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at
all points of time. To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable
right in the court which is competent to examine whether the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against
to the detriment of public interest....". It was thereafter held that
the decision to cancel the tender process was in no way
discriminatory or mala fide. On the contrary, if a contract had
been awarded despite the deficiencies in the tender process,
serious questions touching the legality and propriety affecting the
validity of the tender process would have arisen.
66. In the case of G.J. Fernandez vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488, their Lordships
reaffirmed the principles laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty
v. International Airport Authority of India, reported in (1979) 3
SCC 489. This has also been relied upon in the case of Central
Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)
reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622. Paragraph 38 of the in Central
Coalfields Ltd. is being reproduced hereunder for a ready
reference:-
"38. In G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka 6 both the principles
laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty 5 were reaffirmed. It was
reaffirmed that the party issuing the tender (the employer) "has the
right to punctiliously and rigidly" enforce the terms of the tender.
If a party approaches a court for an order restraining the employer
from strict enforcement of the terms of the tender, the court would
decline to do so. It was also reaffirmed that the employer could
deviate from the terms and conditions of the tender if the "changes
affected all intending applicants alike and were not objectionable".
Therefore, deviation from the terms and conditions is permissible
so long as the level playing field is maintained and it does not
result in any arbitrariness or discrimination in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty5 sense."
5. (1979) 3 SCC 489
6. (1990) 2 SCC 488
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
67. On a reading of the abovementioned judicial
pronouncements, it is crystal clear that the scope of judicial
review permits a constitutional court to interfere with the decision
of the tender inviting authority if it is found to be discriminatory,
it ignores the privilege-of-participation principle laid down in
Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra) and the decision made to favour
a particular tenderer. In the present case, we have discussed in
detail how the tender inviting authority has favoured respondent
nos. 4 and 5 at the stage of technical bid and then by rejecting the
bid of the lowest tenderer (the petitioner no.3) by deviating from
its own past practices.
False entries in Technical Bid comparison chart to
favour consortium of R-4 and R-5
68. We hasten to take note of it that in the present writ
application the petitioner has not challenged the decision of the
Technical Bid Committee taken in its meeting on 21.10.2024
but respondent no.6 has raised an objection as to the eligibility
of R-4 and R-5 in terms of clause 2.4 read with 9.6 under
Section V of the N.I.T. We have reproduced our findings with
regard to the Technical bid comparison chart only to show that
on the one hand how the tender inviting authority went to the
extent of making false entries in the Technical bid comparison
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
chart to favour R-4 and R-5 at the Technical bid stage but on
the other hand, ousted the petitioner at financial bid stage by
arbitrarily deviating from the terms and conditions of tender
and the past practices. This again was to favour R-4 and R-5.
69. In the present case, this Court finds that the
petitioner has been ousted on a completely irrelevant
consideration. On several occasions in several tenders the
Society (respondent no.2) has accepted the bids despite
mention of "0" or "1" in the format which was not properly
structured for submission of that particular bid. This clearly
shows that the same was not part of financial bid document. In
all such cases, the financial bid submitted by the tenderers such
as M/s Radhika Express Services, M/s Yash Services and M/s
Patliputra Printers and Stationery were evaluated on the basis
of the financial bid document only and they were awarded the
tender, but in the case of this petitioner, the same respondent
no.2 has adopted an arbitrary approach to favour R-4 and R-5.
The respondent no.2 did not consider the financial bid as per
actual financial bid format mirroring Annexure-16 under
Section VII of the N.I.T. which was an indicative format. The
words 'indicative format' makes it clear that the financial bid
was to be submitted in the format which was a like Annexure
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
16, Section VII of the N.I.T. The petitioner has rightly
submitted that on e-procurement portal the petitioner was
required to download the tender documents i.e. complete set.
The general provision that the bidder/agency had to quote
every line items in the financial bid format, was not applicable
in this particular bid. It is the stand of the Society that in the
financial bid format in the present case what was required to be
filled up was the percentage discount on base price for
diagnostics test. Apparently, the e-procurement portal was not
duly structured and it was capable of creating confusion. The
petitioner encountered a mandatory blank field labelled "Rate"
which had to be filled in order to proceed with the upload of
the financial bid. Obviously the said field labelled "Rate" was
not as per the indicated Annexure-16, Section VII of the N.I.T.
which required quoting of 'percentage discount on base price'
for diagnostics test. The mandatory blank field labelled "Rate"
which had to be filled in order to proceed with the upload of
the financial bid cannot be said to be a financial quote in the
present tender. The conduct of respondent no.2 in
understanding the same in case of other tenderers as quoted
above strengthens the opinion of this Court. The arbitrariness
and discriminating approach of the Society writ large on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
face of their conduct. At every stage R-4 and R-5 have been
favoured.
Public interest ignored by the Society (R-4 and R-5)
70. It is important to take note of the public interest
element present in the matter. In this case, the petitioner has
quoted 77.06% of discount on the base price whereas
consortium of respondent nos. 4 and 5 has quoted 73.05% of
discount on the base price. It is, therefore, evident that the
petitioners' quote is more beneficial to the State exchequer and
ultimately it would benefit the people at large in the State of
Bihar. This Court has already quoted paragraph '62' of its
judgment in the case of POCT Services (supra) whereunder the
stand of the learned Advocate General has been discussed.
Opinion of this Court
71. In the opinion of this Court, the action of the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 in rejecting the financial bid of the
petitioner is highly arbitrary and it goes to the extent of unduly
favouring the respondent nos.4 and 5 by ignoring the public
interest element. We are of the opinion that the decision to
award contract to the consortium of respondent nos. 4 and 5 in
this case is not a bonafide decision and it is not in public
interest, therefore, this Court finds it a fit case to interfere with
Patna High Court CWJC No.17505 of 2024 dt.08-08-2025
the decision of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in exercise of its
power of judicial review.
72. In result, the decision of the PAC as contained in
Annexure-P/10 to the writ application rejecting the financial
bid of the petitioner and awarding work to the consortium of
respondent nos.4 and 5 is hereby set aside. All subsequent acts
such as award of 'LOI' and execution of agreement in favour of
the said consortium of respondent nos.4 and 5 would be of no
avail and those are also set aside.
73. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to take a
fresh decision preferably within a period of one month from
today, in the light of the discussions made hereinabove.
74. This writ application is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove. The parties shall bear their respective
cost.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
arvind/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 24.06.2025
Uploading Date 08.08.2025
Transmission Date
