Jenendra Medicos PVT. LTD Through Director Vinod Kumar Jain vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Jenendra Medicos Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the empanelment process of chemist shops by respondent no. 3, Additional Director, CGHS, Medical Store Depot. The tender notice dated 25.01.2018 invited bids for supplying medicines to CGHS wellness centres. The petitioner participated in the tender and later raised concerns about irregularities in the bid submitted by respondent no. 4, M/S Gupta Bros, the successful bidder. The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 4's identity was in doubt due to discrepancies in GST registration and that the demand draft submitted was not from the specified bank account. Despite written communication and a legal notice, the petitioner received no response from respondent no. 3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, stated that the technical evaluation report was uploaded after evaluating 49 bidders and inspecting 39 provisionally qualified premises.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the tender document provisions by respondents nos. 1 to 3. Regarding the identity issue, the Court noted that the discrepancy in the GST registration name ('Gupta Bros Chemist' instead of 'Gupta Bros') was clarified by the respondents, who confirmed that respondent no. 4 had furnished a rectified GST registration in the name of 'Gupta Bros'. Therefore, this contention was deemed resolved. Concerning the demand draft, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument. It was held that the tender documents did not impose any restriction on the source of the bank draft, meaning respondent no. 4 was free to obtain it from any bank account. The Court dismissed the petitioner's claim of a benami transaction as baseless. Consequently, the Court found the petition to be unmerited.
Key Issues
1. Whether respondent nos. 1 to 3 violated any specific provision of the tender documents in the empanelment process? The petitioner argued that respondent no. 4 should have been disqualified due to irregularities. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the identity of respondent no. 4 was questionable because the GST registration was in the name of 'Gupta Bros Chemist' while the firm was referred to as 'Gupta Bros'. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the demand draft submitted by respondent no. 4 was not from the bank account specified in the bid documents, suggesting a potential benami transaction. The respondents argued that the petitioner was unable to point out any specific provision of the tender documents that had been violated by respondents nos. 1 to 3. They contended that the discrepancy in the GST registration was rectified by respondent no. 4, and there was no restriction in the tender documents requiring the demand draft to be from a specifically mentioned bank account, thus making the source of the draft irrelevant.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2019
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying for the issuance of a writ, order or direction to respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 to abide by the terms and conditions, stipulated in the tender notice (F.No.55-01/2016-17/CGHS/M ALC) dated 25.01.2018 (hereafter „the tender notice‟). The petitioner further prays for the issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, not to proceed further with the empanelment of the chemist shops without first examining the eligibility of the bidders including respondent no. 4, as per Section 1, part 1 of the tender notice.
The petitioner is a company running a chemist shop, situated at P- 37, Shop No. 2, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110092 and having its registered office at B- 31 A, Gali No. 8, Shashi Garden, Mayur Vihar Phase I, Pocket- I, Delhi- 110091. 3. Respondent No. 3 (Additional Director, CGHS, Medical Store Depot) empanels authorized local chemists for wellness centres to provide indented medicines to its beneficiaries. The chemists are empanelled through e-tendering on the Central Public Procurement (CPP) Portal of NIC. In pursuance of the same, respondent no. 3 issued the tender notice wherein it invited online bids from reputed local chemists with shops allocated in Delhi/ NCR for the supply of allopathic medicines to 99 wellness centres, under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of India by floating an open tender.
In response to the tender notice, the petitioner filed an online bid for Mayur Vihar Phase – I (D-77), Indirapuram Vaishali (D-97), Chandni Chowk (D-08) and Yamuna Vihar (D- 84) wellness centres.
Respondent No. 3 uploaded all the bids, along with the accompanying documents on its CPP portal.
Respondent no. 3 proceeded with the inspection of the premises of respondent no. 4 (M/S Gupta Bros), who is apparently the successful bidder.
While going through the bids, the petitioner claims to have found major irregularities in the bid documents submitted by respondent No.
The petitioner, vide letter no. JM/3-2018/06 dated 5.03.2018, sought to bring to the abovementioned irregularities to the notice of respondent No.
However, no response was received by the petitioner for the same.
The petitioner on receiving no response, sent a legal notice dated 09.04.2018 to respondent no. 3, through its legal counsel. However, no response was received by the petitioner to the same as well. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition before this Court.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 state in the counter affidavit that in case of the on-going e-tender, the “Technical Evaluation Report” was uploaded on 28.09.2018, after the completion of both stages of technical evaluation. This was done after completion of evaluation of bid documents of 49 participating bidders and inspection of 39 “provisionally qualified” bidder premises.
This Court had pointedly asked the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to which specific provision of the tender documents had been violated by respondent no.1 to 3. However, the learned counsel was unable to point out any provision of the tender documents, which has not been followed by respondent nos. 1 to 3. He had limited his arguments to assailing the choice of respondent no.4 as a successful bidder.
It is apparent from the above that the petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by respondent no.4 being selected as a successful bidder. According to the petitioner, respondent no.4 ought to be disqualified for essentially two reasons. First, that the identity of respondent no.4 is in doubt since the firm is referred to as Gupta Bros, however, the GST registration is in the name of Gupta Bros Chemist. Second, that the demand draft furnished by respondent no.4 is not from the account, which is specified in the bid documents.
None of the aforesaid contentions are merited. Clearly, there is no doubt as to the identity of respondent no.4 merely for the reason that the GST registration is in the name of Gupta Bros Chemist, instead of Gupta Bros. Even this issue does not survive, as it is clarified by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that respondent no.4 has furnished the rectified GST registration in the name of Gupta Bros.
The contention that the demand draft furnished by the petitioner is not from the bank account as mentioned in the bid documents is of no relevance. There was no restriction imposed by the respondent nos 1 to 3 that the demand draft be made from the same bank account, as mentioned in the bid documents. Thus, respondent no.4 was free to obtain the bank drafts from any source. The contention that the same reflects a benami transaction is bereft of any merit.
In view of the above, the present petition is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending applications stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 01, 2019 pkv
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.