HINDUSTAN LABORATORIES Vs. COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HEALTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the fourth respondent Appellate Authority in Appeal No. HFW19 HPC 2013. The petitioner is also assailing the action of the third respondent holding the bid submitted by the petitioner as 'non responsive' and is seeking that the financial bid submitted by the petitioner be opened.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the third respondent issued the tender notification dated 23.11.2012 for supply of Drugs, Chemicals and Miscellaneous items. Though 35 items were notified as a requirement under the NRHM programme, the dispute herein relates only in respect of two products. The petitioner and the fifth respondent have offered their bid in respect of the products at Sl.No.12 -Zinc Syrup and Sl.No.27 - Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) Syrup 20 Mg/Ml 100 Ml. bottle. In the technical evaluation, the bid of the petitioner is held 'non responsive' in respect of both the products while that of the fifth respondent is held 'responsive'. The petitioner had therefore filed an appeal before the fourth respondent who is the Appellate Authority in terms of Sec.16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 ('KTPP Act' for short) and Rule 29 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 ('Rules 2000' for short). The fourth respondent -Appellate Authority by its order dated 05.03.2013 has dismissed the appeal. The petitioner is therefore before this Court in this petition. The third and the fifth respondents have filed their respective objection statement seeking to justify their action and are accordingly seeking to sustain the order passed by the fourth respondent. It is to be noted that the fifth respondent was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings in the appeal.

(3.) THE bid of the petitioner is held to be 'non responsive', since according to the third respondent they have not complied with condition No.2.F of the technical qualification criteria, whereunder the bidder must have the valid manufacturing license for the quoted products, without break for at least last three years. Yet another defect noticed is of not providing the translation of the vernacular appearing in the submitted document which amounts to non compliance of condition No.4.1 of the General conditions. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that they have complied the requirement. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the other hand if the certificate of the petitioner is construed from the date of issue, the case of the fifth respondent would also be similar as their license is also not three years prior to the notification and their bid for Zinc syrup should have been held 'non responsive'.