Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.838 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. M/S Bhardwaz Farma Having Office At Sri Krishna Nagar, P.S + Town Motihari, District Motihari Through Its Proprietor Ravi Ranjan Kumar Son Of Raj Narayan Singh Of Mohalla Sri Krishna Nagar, P.S. + Town Motihari, District East Champaran At Motihari. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari cum District Health Society, Motihari 4. The Civil Surgeon, East Champaran at Motihari cum Secretary, District Health Society, Motihari 5. The District Programme Officer, East Champaran at Motihari Cum Member, District Health Society, Motihari. 6. The District Health Society, East Champaran at Motihari through Its Chairman. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 6 16-07-2013 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma in support of the application and Mr. Rajesh Ranjan AC to SC-9 for the State. Parties have exchanged pleadings. The petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of tender noticed dated 23.11.12 (Annexure-1) issued under the joint signature(s) of the respondent District Magistrate-cum -Chairman, District Health Society and the Civil Surgeon-cum-Secretary of the Society in so far as it relates to group nos. 15 to 21 regarding laundry service. By said notice inviting tender (NIT) the respondents invited quotations for providing laundry service to
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.838 of 2013 (6) dt.16-07-2013 Page 2 /6 different public health centres/hospitals. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction commanding the respondents to extend the contract earlier entered between the petitioner and the respondents regarding laundry service which was for a period of 11 months with extension clause depending on performance/evaluation. Brief facts giving rise to present writ petition is that in the year 2011, a similar notice inviting tender was issued for providing different services including laundry service at different health Centres. The petitioner submitted the tender papers. Having found most suitable the respondent District Health Society decided to award the laundry service work to the petitioner by letter dated 29.8.2011 whereby he was called upon to enter into an agreement for providing laundry service at specified centres /hospitals /PHCs. The agreement (Annexure-2) was entered between the parties on 9.9.2011. The petitioner provided the Bank guarantee. Having done so, the petitioner generated resources and started rendering the service to the fullest satisfaction of the respondents. The respondents, in the meanwhile, again published notice inviting tender on 6.10.12 for providing other services at the centres/Hospitals/PHCs including laundry. Another agency earlier selected for providing some of the services were left out from the said tender/notice. This was obviously invoking relevant Patna High Court CWJC No.838 of 2013 (6) dt.16-07-2013 Page 3 /6 clause of the agreement entered between the parties. The same was, however, not pursued further in so far as laundry service is concerned and the respondents again came out with the impugned NIT dated 23.11.12. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, submitted that the agreement earlier entered between the petitioner and the respondents contains a clause that the term of the contract shall be for initial period of 11 months which is liable to be extended further, subject to performance evaluation by the District Health Society, on the basis of recommendation of the concerned ‘Rogi Kalyan Samite’. It has, thus, been submitted that in all fairness respondents ought to have extended the term under the said contract in view of the satisfactory service rendered by the petitioner which is evidenced by the certificates issued by the different authorities relevant in the matter (Annexure 6 series). It has next been submitted that in some other case respondent did grant such extension since the notice inviting tender did not relate to those services at specified locations. It has next been contended that the impugned notice inviting tender (Annexure-1) raises the eligibility criteria to an extent or proportion which is arbitrary. The bidder as per the altered criteria must have an Patna High Court CWJC No.838 of 2013 (6) dt.16-07-2013 Page 4 /6 average turn over of 50,00,000/- ( fifty lacs) or above in the preceding three years besides requirement of furnishing other certification. It has, thus, been submitted that those conditions should be struck down. Conversely, the State respondents have supported the impugned action. It has been submitted that the respondent District Health Society resolved to invite tenders for inner and outer cleaning and washing of clothes, supply of electricity through silent generators and supply of food etc. The services to be outsourced was required to be of better quality. Necessity of having more efficient service was felt in the interest of the patient and /or person needing health care. Accordingly, the agency or agencies be selected afresh after floating fresh tender with an altered condition. The only purpose was to secure better service from the willing and suitable service provider. The petitioner was earlier selected for providing laundry service. The service rendered by the petitioner was not found proper and/or up to the mark. Accordingly, the respondents decided to float NIT inviting fresh tender. The respondents had entered into a contract which was initially for 11 months only. The petitioner has no legal right to get the contract extended particularly when the service rendered by the petitioner was not found up to the mark by the Patna High Court CWJC No.838 of 2013 (6) dt.16-07-2013 Page 5 /6 District Health society which consisted of diverse officers/authorities engaged in overall supervision of the works. If the petitioner wants to enforce the term of the contract then he may be relegated to the remedy before the competent Civil Court. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. On perusal of the agreement, it appears that the petitioner was allowed to render the service for a period of 11 months. The said period was liable to be extended but subject to performance/evaluation. The other conditions of the agreement indicated that the quality of work was not going to be compromised on any condition. It further contains a clause that the quality of work if found poor then the service provider was liable to be removed from the work during the period of the agreement. In a matter like this where the efficiency of the service provider is paramount and the same concerns the health care of the people at large, this Court would not find fault in the stand of the respondents in initiating a fresh process for selecting a suitable service provider for the said purpose. The agreement itself declares the initial work period for 11 months. It was extendable subject to condition. It is the specific case of the respondents that the committee, on evaluation, did not find the service of the petitioner up to the mark, and as such, came out with the fresh Patna High Court CWJC No.838 of 2013 (6) dt.16-07-2013 Page 6 /6 notice inviting tender. This Court is unable to find any arbitrary element in such decision of the respondents. The petitioner has also submitted that the terms/conditions of eligibility has been enhanced and the same be declared as arbitrary and struck down. The respondents in the notice inviting tender (Annexure-1) has imposed certain conditions fulfilment thereof will make the tenderer technically eligible. It has been contemplated that the average turn over of the applicant/ service provider in the past three financial year should be Rs. 50,00,000/-. This is the discretion which has been exercised having meaningful purpose behind it. Putting a condition in the notice inviting tender is to be applied uniformly. Seen thus, this Court does not find any patent illegality and/or arbitrariness in imposing the said condition in the NIT. The contention of the petitioner made in this regard is also not tenable in law. For the reasons noted above, this Court finds no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-