TECHNOMED INDIA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs;

(2.) The facts in brief are that the second respondent had issued Tender notification dated 05.01.2013 seeking response for supply of equipments for Ambulance in package consisting of 21 items. The petitioner and the third respondent had submitted their bids in addition to one another. The technical bids were opened on 11.02.2013 and said three bids were held to be responsive. The petitioner raised certain objections with regard to the bid of the other two being considered as responsive. The demonstration of the equipments were undertaken only by the petitioner and the third respondent. In respect of the Ambulance vehicles, though it was a part of the process under distinct Tender, it was proposed to purchase under DGS & D rate contract and purchase order dated 19.03.2013 was issued to M/s. Tata Motors. With regard to the equipments, the Procurement Portal of the second respondent is stated to have shown the name of the petitioner as selected as on 16.07.2013. The grievance is that despite the same, it is contended by the second respondent that the Tender Accepting Authority had in the proceedings held on 01.07.2013 decided to set aside the proceedings. Thereafter fresh Tender notification for Ambulance Interior Fabrication, Exterior Designing, supply and Installation of Equipments as at Annexure R and the Addendum/Corrigendum as at Annexure-S are issued. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the issue of Fresh Tender Notification is before this Court assailing the same and also seeking benefit under the initial tender notification.

(3.) The second respondent has filed the objection statement. The issue of two short tender notification for purchase of 200 numbers of Ambulance with interior fabrication and equipments was issued based on the requirement indicated by the Programming Officer, National Rural Health Mission (for short the NRHM ). The process with regard to pre-bid meeting of the technical bids being opened and demonstration of ambulance equipments being held, there is no dispute. However, since there was change with regard to procurement of Ambulance, a meeting of the Tender Accepting Authority was held on 01.07.2013 to explore the possibility of asking the L-1 bidder to provide Ambulance equipments. However, since the price of individual items was not available, the Tender Accepting Authority accordingly, decided to set-aside the procurement of Ambulance equipments and directed to call for fresh Tenders including interior fabrication, exterior designing and revised list of Ambulance equipments. The petitioner has not participated in the fresh Tender. Since only Ambulance vehicles without interior fabrication were procured under DGS & D rate contract, the same was intimated to the indenting authority viz., NRHM who have revised the 21 equipments to 17 equipments. This was done keeping in view the requirement as the Ambulance is to be used only to drop the healthy mother and baby from the hospital to the residence as emergency service. The Tender Accepting Authority therefore set-aside the Tender for Ambulance equipments and called for fresh Tender for Ambulance interior and exterior equipments. In respect of the fresh Tender, the pre-bid meeting was held on 07.08.2013 and the corrigendum was uploaded on 08.08.2013. The Tender has been opened on 23.08.2013. The petitioner not having participated in the same cannot question it is the contention. Further, the petitioner should be relegated to alternate remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (for short the KTTP Act ) is also the contention. With regard to the annual turnover fixed in the Tender, it is stated that in order to get competent bidder, the same was fixed at Rs.31 crores and reduced to Rs.15 crores after the pre-bid meeting. Hence, it is contended that the petition be dismissed.