Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. After Ext.P10 cancellation order was published, Ext.P11 retender notification has been issued. In Ext.P11 the route of administration is shown as "ID" and the unit is "1 ml Vial" with a strength of "2.5 IU".

6. The vehement contention raised is that the entire process is vitiated by arbitrariness. It is pointed out that the respondents are bound to guarantee a level playing field. The petitioner mainly contends that by Ext.P3 amendment, the Corporation had dispensed with the specification of Rabies Vaccine based on the route of administration as "IM" and "ID". This was done after the clarification in the pre tender discussion as provided under para 6.17 of the tender conditions. Now the reason stated in Ext.P10 is that the route of administration has not been mentioned in Ext.P3 which is unjustified. It is also stated that the alleged complaints of the tenderers have no real relevance in the matter, as already the issue was settled. Ext.P8 was issued only as a prelude to the cancellation. No vaccine is capable of application in both ways. It is thus explained that it is after the price bid was opened a change was attempted only to deny the acceptance of the tender of the petitioner. When all the parties understood that the quantity required and the unit specified can only be by way of "ID" method, merely because of the absence of the word "ID" in Ext.P3, the tender cannot be cancelled.

15. It is submitted that the alleged ploy now adopted by issuing the retender notification and by specifying the route of administration as "Intra Dermal" was not at all required in the light of Ext.P3 amendment to the first notification Ext.P1. It is submitted that in Ext.P1 in Section IV the route of administration is shown as "IM/ID" and the unit is shown as "1ml" Vial apart from the strength of dosage. The petitioner had raised an objection in the pre tender meeting which was held on 19.1.2012 with regard to the description of the item. The suggestion of the petitioner is evident from Ext.P2. It was pointed out that 1ml quantity cannot be used for Intra Muscular route whereas it can be used only for Intra Dermal route of administration. Ext.P3 was issued after the said suggestion of the petitioner was accepted and both the routes of administration have been deleted therein. What is added therein is the words "Duck Embryo". Everybody understood that the route of administration is "ID" only and further tendering process was undertaken accordingly. While inviting this Court's attention to para 3 of the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that as on 23.3.2012 with the exclusion of M/s. Cadila Healthcare, there were only three tenderers left. Thereafter on 26.3.2012 the price bid was opened. Para 6.16.7 and 6.16.8 of Ext.P1 notification have thus been complied with. Thereafter, the provisional drug-wise rate list of all the accepted products of the eligible bidders and list of rejected bidders will be published in the notice board in terms of para 6.16.9 as well as 6.16.10. Going by the said publication which is evident from Ext.P4 herein, the petitioner is the L1 tenderer. Therefore, the respondents had to proceed with the next stage under para 6.16.11 and the remaining steps will have to be completed accordingly. It is submitted that there is no justification for issuing Ext.P5 on the plea that there were complaints in the matter. An attempt to refer to the decision of the Board of Directors is therefore illegal and malafide. The petitioner's price bid reflected in Ext.P4 will show that the quoted rate is Rs.133.43 whereas the rate quoted by the L2 tenderer is 134.21 and that of L3 is 183.75. It is submitted that the deferring of the decision to accept L1 tender and referring the matter to the Board of Directors is clearly to deny grant of tender to the petitioner. The complaints had to be decided at the time of examination of the technical bid and thereafter what remains is only opening of the price bid. No further enquiry is required after the Bid Evaluation Committee accepted the technical bid. Therefore, it is pointed out that the entire attempt is a clandestine one to scuttle the tendering process. Ext.P5 is therefore actuated by malafides and Ext.P11 retender notice was not at all required in the light of the amended notification Ext.P3 itself. Learned Senior Counsel further explained that as far as the route of administration is concerned, a vaccine for which the route of administration is IM, cannot be used for the other route, viz. ID. Therefore, it was not necessary in Ext.P11 now to notify it as ID especially, 1 ml indicates ID route itself. It is also submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner Ext.P8 asking to explain the details regarding the licences, if any, for IM/ID routes is with a preconceived attempt to deny the award of contract to the petitioner. Nobody had any such complaint before and the petitioner has suitably replied it in Ext.P9. It is submitted that a licence for use of a vaccine for IM route by the petitioner is not at all required since the contract notified covered only ID route. It is therefore submitted that the well settled principles laid down by this Court and the Apex Court with regard to providing a level playing field has been clearly violated. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court: W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Enginering Co. Ltd. And others {(2001) 2 SCC 451}, Union of India and another v. International Trading Co. and another {(2003) 5 SCC 437}, Reliance Energy Ltd. And another v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. and others {(2007) 8 SCC 1}, State of Kerala v. Zoom Developers Private Limited and others {(2009) 4 SCC 363} and M/s. Zoom Developers Private Limited v. State of Kerala and others (2008 (4) KHC 934).

"The very purpose of issuing rules/instructions is to ensure their enforcement lest the rule of law should be a casualty."

49. In Reliance Energy Ltd.'s case {(2007) 8 SCC 1} in para 36 the Apex Court has laid down the doctrine of 'level playing field'. It was held that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India cover various aspects of life and level playing field is an important concept while construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The said paragraph is extracted below for easy reference:

"36. We find merit in this civil appeal. Standards applied by courts in judicial review must be justified by constitutional principles which govern the proper exercise of public power in a democracy. Article 14 of the Constitution embodies the principle of "non -discrimination". However, it is not a free-standing provision. It has to be read in conjunction with rights conferred by other articles like Article 21 of the Constitution. The said Article 21 refers to "right to life". It includes "opportunity". In our view, as held in the latest judgment of the Constitution Bench of nine Judges in Coelho v. State of T.N. (2007) 2 SCC 1), Articles 21/14 are the heart of the chapter on fundamental rights. They cover various aspects of life. "Level playing field" is an important concept while construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is this doctrine which is invoked by REL/HDEC in the present case. When Article 19(1)(g) confers fundamental right to carry on business to a company, it is entitled to invoke the said doctrine of "level playing field". We may clarify that this doctrine is, however, subject to public interest. In the world of globalisation, competition is an important factor to be kept in kind. The doctrine of "level playing field" is an important doctrine which is embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This is because the said doctrine provides space within which equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to subserve the larger public interest. "Globalisation", in essence, is liberalisation of trade. Today India has dismantled licence raj. The economic reforms introduced after 1992 have brought in the concept of "globalisation". Decisions or acts which result in unequal and discriminatory treatment, would violate the doctrine of "level playing field" embodied in Article 19(1)(g). Time has come, therefore, to say that Article 14 which refers to the principle of "equality" should not be read as a stand alone item but it should be read in conjunction with Article 21 which embodies several aspects of life. There is one more aspect which needs to be mentioned in the matter of implementation of the aforestated doctrine of "level playing field". According to Lord Goldsmith, commitment to the "rule of law" is the heart of parliamentary democracy. One of the important element of the "rule of law" is legal certainty. Article 14 applies to government policies and if the policy or act of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of "reasonableness', then such an act or decision would be unconstitutional."