Gujarat High Court
M/S Aditi Consultancy Through ... vs Gujarat Mineral Development ... on 7 September, 2021
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/SCA/9782/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9782 of 2021
==========================================================
M/S ADITI CONSULTANCY THROUGH PROPRIETOR MAHESH
MAKWANA
Versus
GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH
GENERAL MANAGER
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANKIT N MEHTA(7302) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK B KORADIYA(9955) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GURSHARANSINGH H VIRK(7392) & MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR(7150) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 07/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
14(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application;
(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate order or direction directing the respondent to cancel the tender of the company which has been given and invite fresh tenders and initiate the entire tender process afresh as the respondent could not complete tender process as per the conditions of the tender eligibility and its action smacks of mala fide;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to direct the respondent to stay process of contract which given to the company;
(D) Be pleased to pass such other and further order in the interest of justice, that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 12:53:39 IST 2022
C/SCA/9782/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2021
2. The following order came to be passed by this bench dated 15.07.2021.
"1. We have heard Mr. Ankit Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant.
2. At the outset, Mr. Mehta prayed for an amendment to implead M/s. Asilia Home Healthcare Ltd. as the party respondent no.2 being the company in whose favour the contract has been awarded.
3. Amendment allowed. The writ applicant is permitted to implead M/s. Asilia Home Healthcare as the party respondent no.2. Cause title be amended accordingly.
4. Mr. Mehta, invited the attention of this Court to the tender document more particularly, Chapter-IV which stipulates the criteria for evaluation of the technical bids. The criteria of experience as stipulated in Chapter-IV reads as under:
"EXPERIENCE: 1. The bidder should have any of the following type of work order of at least three year for providing medical services to Government/Semi Government/ Municipality / Corporation/Private Company in the last seven years ending on 31.03.2019. Certified copy of the same shall be submitted. a. 3 Similar works each costing not less than 40% of the estimated contract value i.e 40% of Rs. 2.70 Crore (Excluding Taxes) Or b. 2 Similar works each costing not less than 50% of the estimated contract value i.e 50% of Rs. 2.70 Crore (Excluding Taxes) Or c. 1 Similar works costing not less than 80 % of the estimated contract value i.e 80% of Rs. 2.70 Crore (Excluding Taxes). Similar work means and include to provide medical staff, para-medical staff, medical healthcare facilities. However, the bidder must be providing medical and/or paramedical staff like MBBS Doctors and paramedical staff to the organisation under the said work orders."
5. It is the case of Mr. Mehta that the writ applicant fulfills this experience whereas M/s. Asilia Home Healthcare, in whose favour the contract has been awarded, is not fulfilling this criteria of experience. According to Mr. Mehta, the bid offered Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 12:53:39 IST 2022 C/SCA/9782/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2021 by the writ applicant should have been accepted whereas the bid offered by M/s. Asilia Home Healthcare should not have been accepted.
6. In view of the aforesaid, let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 12.08.2021. Direct service is permitted."
3. We were given to understand that the bid offered by the writ-applicant was wrongly rejected, whereas, the bid offered by the respondent no.2 was wrongly accepted despite the fact that the respondent no.2 could not be said to be fullfilling the criteria of the experience.
4. Today, the the matter is taken up for hearing, it is sought to be clarified that the writ-applicant had infact not participated at all in the tender notice. The writ-applicant had never offerred his bid. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter on the short ground that the contract period is to come an end next month and a statement is being made by Mr. Virk, the leraned counsel appearing for the Corporation that no sooner the contract period of the respondent no.2 comes to an end next month, then the Corporation shall be going for a fresh tender notice.
5. In view of the aforesaid, no further adjudication is required of this matter. The writ-application stands disposed of.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 12:53:39 IST 2022