Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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).

Hence, a decision or act which results in unequal or discriminatory treatment will violate the doctrine of 'level playing field'.

50. In M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.s case (2008 (4) KHC 934) a Division Bench of this Court examined various aspects. In para 77 the Bench relied upon the principles stated in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (AIR 1976 SC 1628), in the following words:

"While judicially reviewing an administrative decision that involves of a tender process or contract of this nature, the Courts are not very much concerned about the merits of the decision, but concerned with the process of decision making. Law in this regard is well settled and need not be reiterated. Development of law in this regard from the celebrated decision of Supreme Court in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1976 SC 1628 is steady and unambiguous. If the decision making is vitiated by any reason, then the Courts will interfere."

The tests laid down are with reference to the requirement to state reasons by an administrative authority under various situations.

51. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the principles stated by the Apex Court in various decisions extracted in paragraphs 95 to 98 of the judgment in M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.s case (supra). In para 101, the Division Bench was of the view that "even the administrative order which involve civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Expression "civil consequences" encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages." The above principle was explained in the light of the fact that all the decisions should be supported by reasons and after perusal of the records, the Bench was of the view that the order impugned therein was not a reasoned one. The above judgment was confirmed by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Zoom Developers Private Limited and others {(2009) 4 SCC 563}.

53. Going by the principles stated by the Apex Court in International Trading Company's case {(2003) 5 SCC 437} that every State action must be informed of reason and that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary, it cannot be said that the cancellation of the tender by Ext.P10 and the fresh notification Ext.P11 is bad in law. The respondents have explained as to why the retender notification was issued, in that only the L3 tenderer has got the authorisation for both IM and ID route of administration and they felt that if a fresh tender is invited all the bidders can participate and a tender which conforms to the specifications of ID route of administration can be accepted based on them. The said reason, which is supported by the document produced, viz. Ext.R2(g), by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The decision therefore, to cancel the tenders already invited, even though it is alleged by the petitioner as unsupportable by reason, in the light of Exts.R2(f) and R2(g), it can be seen that the said decision is well supported by reasons and has been arrived at after following various procedures and after evaluating the documents in the light of the objections raised by various parties. The files have been produced for perusal by the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. On a perusal of the records also, it can be seen that the procedures have been completed in a proper and transparent manner and the decision is not actuated by malafides as alleged by the petitioner. Going by the judgment of the Division Bench in M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.'s case (2008 (4) KHC 934), a decision like the one herein, supported by reasons should be evident from the records also (para 101). The copies of the documents produced by the respondents will show that cogent reasons have been stated in support of the decision. It is not a case where by a single line order the respondents have cancelled the tender notification to characterise the same as one uninformed by any reason. Therefore, even going by the application of the principles stated in para 101 of the above decision, it can be seen that the decision herein is supported by cogent reasons. The doctrine of level playing field is also not violated, as no discriminatory treatment was meted out to the petitioner.