Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swastik Diagno Lab Sonography And ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2023
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 18 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 694 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SWASTIK DIAGNO LAB, SONOGRAPHY AND IMAGING
CENTRE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR / DIRECTOR SMT.
KHOSBOO CHOURASIYA D/O SHRI LAVKUSH
CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT YEARS W/O DINESH
KUMAR, OCCUPATION DOCTOR, INFRONT OF SANJAY
GANDHI HOSPITAL INDRA MARKET BESIDE OF AXIS
BANK ATM HOUSE NO. 22/221 REWA AND R/O F-14/2
DOCTOR COLONY NEAR P.T.S. CHOURAHA REWA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.S. DUBEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR AND SUPERINTENDENT
GANDHI SMARAK HOSPITAL, REWA, DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER,
REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DEAN, MEDICAL COLLEGE, REWA DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. CORE DIAGNOSTIC GURUGRAM THROUGH ITS
M AN AG ER , 406 PHASE-III UDHYOG BIHAR,
SECTOR-19, GURUGRAM, HARIYANA PIN 122016
(HARYANA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NAVEEN DUBEY - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SMT. GEETHA
NAIR
Signing time: 1/18/2023
5:26:59 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondents, whereby respondents No.2 and 3 are issued tender in favour of private respondent No.5.
The ground to assail this tender is that the tender document mentions only 12 conditions to be fulfilled, however, while passing the rejection order, additional condition was imposed, which were not the part of the tender.
On perusal of the documents filed alongwith this petition, it is observed that the technical proposal was opened on 17.05.2022 and on the same day the tender of petitioner was rejected on the ground that authorization letter of the outsourcing agency is not annexed to the bid. It is pertinent to note here that this rejection of the tender of the petitioner is not challenged by her. Pursuant to this rejection, the petitioner has submitted a number of representations. Document (Annexure P-5) shows that her representation was also rejected by letter dated 17.06.2022, but interestingly this order is also not under challenge in this petition. By this order, the respondents have dealt with the grievance raised by the petitioner. This order clarifies that no new clause has been added in the tenders condition, rather it is the condition of clause No.33, which requires the details of the outsourcing agency and their registration/authorization letter. As per this rejection letter, the petitioner under clause 33 has stated that she has been outsourcing through Dr. Lal Path Lab, Jabalpur/Delhi, however in the MOU that has been uploaded with the details, one Dr. Shivam Chourasiya is the authorized person and not the present petitioner. Since this specific condition in clause 33 was to give the details from which agency the petitioner is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/18/2023 5:26:59 PM 3 going to get the samples outsourced and to submit their authorization certificate, the same was not fulfilled, the tender was rejected and this was mentioned in the rejection list showing why the tender of petitioner has been rejected. This was not a new condition added subsequent to the issuance of the tender, but a part of tender only.
Under the circumstances, when the petitioner herself has not challenged the rejection of her tender, she cannot dispute that the tender has been issued to the private respondent.
There is no merit in the petitioner and accordingly dismissed.
(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE gn Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/18/2023 5:26:59 PM