TRIVITRON MEDICAL SYSTEM PVT.LTD., NEW DELHI Vs. CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL RAIBARELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Avnish Kumar, Ms. Kirti Srivastava for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Abhinav Trivedi for respondent no.3.

(2.) THE petitioner alongwith three more companies, namely, M/s. Medilux, M/s. Erbis Engineering Company, and M/s. Siemens Ltd. responded to the aforesaid tender notice and offered their bids. On finalization of the technical bid by the Committee constituted for the purpose, namely, the Purchase Committee, it was reported that three Companies out of four, namely, M/s. Trivitron Medical System Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner), M/s. Erbis Engineering Company, and M/s. Siemens Ltd. (respondent no.3) had qualified in the aforesaid bid. After opening of the financial bid on 20.10.09, the Purchase Committee reported that bid of M/s. Trivitron Medical System Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) was the lowest and it was decided unanimously by the Committee that the aforesaid equipment be purchased from the petitioner. This report is dated 21.10.09, which was sent by the Chief Medical Superintendent to the Chairman/ District Magistrate, Zila Swasthya Samiti, Raibareli. The District Magistrate on that very date, made an endorsement to the following effect:

(3.) SRI Abhinav Trivedi, appearing for respondent no.3 says that, as a matter of fact, it was not only the quality of the equipment, but also the workmanship and after sale service which was taken into account by the District Magistrate while issuing the said order, but he does not dispute that at no point of time, the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to negotiate.