HOSCO PVT. LTD. Vs. JHARKHAND MEDICAL AND HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

(2.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 while the respondent no. 1- Jharkhand Medical and Health Infrastructure Development and Procurement Corporation Ltd. is a Government of Jharkhand entity and is 100% financed by the State of Jharkhand. It has been stated that the respondent no. 1 had published a tender as contained in Bid Ref. No. JMC/NIT-23/PICU EQP/24 dtd. 20/6/2023 for supply of PICU Equipments. In the said tender several PICU Equipments were required to be supplied and Bidders were to submit their Bids in respect of each of the items to be supplied under the Tender Document. The present writ application pertains to supply of Defibrillators and in the Tender Document itself detailed specification was given with respect to supply of Defibrillators and it was provided therein apart from other technical specifications that the Defibrillators to be supplied should be having accessories, spare parts, consumables being '3 nos. of Reusable CPR feedback Sensor'. The petitioner being eligible to supply Defibrillators had submitted its Bid and the proposed Defibrillators which were to be supplied as per the Bid document was of model 'Mediana D700'. Apart from the petitioner the other participants in the supply of Defibrillators included (a) M/s. Sai Associate and (b) M/s. Kailash Surgical Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3). After the Bids were submitted by all the Bidders, the respondent no. 2 vide letter as contained in Ref. No. JMC/Porc-23/PICU-M&E/59/2293 dtd. 3/11/2023 invited the three Bidders for demonstration of their quoted products before the Expert Committee for verification of Technical Specifications. The petitioner during the demonstration exercise had demonstrated its product being 'Mediana Defibrillator D700' while the respondent no. 3 had demonstrated 'Zoll Defibrillator R-series'. The demonstration was completed on 17/11/2023 but since it was pointed out by the petitioner that the Defibrillators intended to be supplied by the respondent no. 3 was not as per the technical specification, the exercise of demonstration was again fixed on 1/12/2023. The petitioner by way of a protest had filed a representation before the respondent no. 1 on 1/12/2023 itself bringing to its notice the failure on the part of the respondent no. 3 to meet the technical specification as indicated in the tender document. The exercise of demonstration was once again undertaken by the respondent no. 2 wherein the petitioner had demonstrated the capability of its Defibrillator which it intended to supply.