ZIQUITZA HEALTH CARE LTD. Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the award of the project to run Emergency Medical Response Service in the State of Himachal Pradesh to the second respondent. The main grounds of the challenge are (i) being the only tenderer, the offer of the petitioner should have been accepted (ii) the petitioner also should have been granted an opportunity to see whether it is possible to have an MOU with the State and (iii) the second respondent, with whom the MOU is signed, does not now have good reputation. The following are the prayers:

(2.) At the outset itself we may indicate that this Court at the admission stage had, granted an opportunity to the petitioner to explore the possibility for an MOU with the State and the petitioner availed that opportunity also. But, according to the State, for various reasons discussed below, it is not feasible to have an MOU with the petitioner.

(3.) The litigation has a chequered history. On 25.11.2008, the State initiated the process of starting the Emergency Medical Response Transport Service. It is in fact an ambulance service, with life support systems provided in it, operated with the participation of the State. After evaluating various alternatives, it was initially proposed to go for a MOU route with the EMRI (Emergency Medical Reserve Institute), Hydrabad (second respondent) in view of its successful track record in the field. However, the government, ultimately, decided to go for a competitive bidding process. Thus, in May, 2009, the State called for expressions of interest (EOI) for starting the Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Response. Eight private partners expressed their interest. On the basis of technical evaluation, five were short listed and they were given request for proposal (RFP). On 12.10.2009, the bids were opened. M/s Anjana International Industries Consortium, which quoted Rs. 419/- per trip, was selected. The petitioner quoted Rs. 1298/- per trip and the second respondent did not participate in the process, though it had participated at the stage of expression of interest and short listed thereafter. There was no other bid. In January, 2010 an agreement was signed. However, by the end of March, 2010, it was came out that the awardee, M/s Anjana International was not in a position to operaterationalize the project. Though the petitioner expressed its desire to enter into agreement with the Government, since the petitioner was nowhere near to the bid of the awardee, the Government was not interested. It is seen that discussions had been held with the second respondent also on the MOU route. Since bidding process had once been initiated, it was, ultimately, decided to go for a fresh tender. On 21.5.2010, within two months, fresh tender was invited. Only the petitioner participated in the process. The rate quoted was Rs. 1649/- per trip. It is significant to note that on 12.10.2009 in the initial bid, rate quoted was Rs. 1298/- per trip and the petitioner was willing to operate the scheme at that rate in March-April, 2010. It is also significant to note that all through the second respondent was interested to go in the MOU route and various discussions were also being held in the process. On comparative evaluation, it was found that in the case of the petitioner, total out-flow for five years (Project is for five years) would be Rs. 161.70 crores, whereas in the case of the second respondent, it would be only Rs. 91.30 crores and hence, a decision was taken in the Cabinet to cancel the tender process and to go in the MOU route. Thus, the second respondent was called for the discussion and steps were taken to enter an MOU. The petitioner was intimated about cancellation of the tender process. The State and the second respondent signed the MOU on 9.7.2010 and thus, this writ petition.