(1.) The petitioner, GHSPL Begusarai, Health Care LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership Firm incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and a registered MSME unit under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the Request For Proposal (hereinafter referred to as 'RFP') dtd. 26/5/2023 under Annexure-1 issued by the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Keonjhar, Odisha for 'Selection of agency for setting up and operation of Digital Dispensaries in Keonjhar district under District Mineral Foundation Keonjhar'.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Glocal Healthcare Systems Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Glocal'), which is a company engaged in the business of providing health care services throughout the country in the field of digital dispensaries since 2010. The Directors and Senior Executives of Glocal are the designated partners of the petitioner firm. Opposite party no.2 issued an RFP on 26/5/2023 under Annexure-1, which was published in daily newspapers, namely, 'The Times of India', 'Dharitri' and 'Pragatibadi' on 27/5/2023 for 'Selection of agency for setting up and operation of Digital Dispensaries in Keonjhar district under District Mineral Foundation, Keonjhar'. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued by opposite party no.2 by way of an advertisement on 31/5/2023 to the following effect:-
(3.) Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. A. Mukherji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Glocal and that the requirement regarding experience cannot be construed to mean that the said experience should be of the tenderer in its name only. It is further contended that to visualize a situation where a person having past experience entered into a partnership and the tender was submitted in the name of the partnership firm, which may not have past experience of a partner of the firm, cannot be taken into consideration. Thereby, it is contended that taking into consideration the criteria for marking, it can positively be presumed that the petitioner scored satisfactory qualifying marks of above 60 basing on Glocal's experience, the number of digital dispensaries run by Glocal till date, and most importantly the fact that Glocal, of which the petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary, has been successfully running digital dispensaries in the region for which the tender has been floated, for the past 7 years. The Glocal has run 15 centres in Keonjhar and about 40 centres in other districts in Odisha establishing their technical capability beyond doubt. It is further contended that in the process of evaluation, while marks are earmarked with regard to certain criterion, an abnormal percentage of 40% is being kept aside for personal interview, i.e., technical presentation, and thereby on the discretion of the authorities, which itself is arbitrary and unconscionable, as such a huge percentage of marks in the process of selection of a specialized service cannot be left open to discretion, thereby leaving the process of evaluation to qualify or not to qualify a bidder entirely at the discretion of the authorities, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Referring to Annexure-6, it is further contended that the petitioner ought to have scored 49 out of 60 and there was no scope for cancelling even a single mark from the said categories. The petitioner would not have scored 11 marks out of 40 in the technical presentation, but the petitioner, with its requisite qualification and quality of presentations, reasonably expected to get 35 out of 40 in the technical presentation, which was more than enough to take it to participate in the financial bid. Therefore, awarding of 11 marks out of 40 in the technical presentation category is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and, therefore, the petitioner seeks for interference of this Court in this case. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon New Horizons Limited V. Union of India (UOI), (1995) 1 SCC 478.