JITESH GHEWARCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gaurish N. Agni, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D.J. Pangam, learned Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Pankaj Pai Vernekar, learend Advocate for the respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 170 of 2018. Mr. Ravi Gawas, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D.J. Pangam, learned Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. Pankaj Pai Vernekar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 and Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.483 of 2018.

(2.) Rule in both these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties we make the Rule returnable forthwith. Even otherwise we are informed that there were orders for disposal of these petitions finally, at the stage of admission. The pleadings were also completed and since these are matters involving award of tenders, it is only appropriate that some priority is given to these matters.

(3.) In both these petitions, the basic challenge is to the terms of the tender to run a medical store on contract basis at the Goa Medical College, Bambolim, Goa and other connected matters. The petitioners basically contend that the terms, including in particular the terms relating to experience and annual turnover were made over stringent so as to kill competition and render several persons / entities who were otherwise competent to discharge contract of this nature, ineligible from even competing in the tender process. Accordingly, it is only appropriate that both these petitions are taken up for disposal together.