Rakesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, proprietor of M/s Briman Health Care Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in supplying medicines and surgical items. During the COVID-19 pandemic, on November 16, 2020, he applied to the Superintendent of Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) to supply medicines and surgical items on local purchase at 20% less than MRP for the Ayushman Bharat Yojana and COVID-19 wards. The Superintendent allowed the supply on November 17, 2020. The petitioner supplied items from January 11, 2021, to January 29, 2021, based on indents from the Incharge Pharmacist, PMCH. He submitted a bill of Rs. 5,22,522/- for payment, but it remained unpaid. The State contended that the supply was made without a tender process or approval from the purchase committee. The Superintendent, PMCH, sought guidance from the Health Department on March 1, 2025, regarding the payment, which was pending.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to payment for the medicines and surgical items supplied to PMCH. It was noted that the petitioner was allowed to supply during the COVID-19 period by the Superintendent, PMCH, and there was no dispute that the supplies were indeed made based on proper indents. The Court acknowledged that the COVID-19 period was an extraordinary situation where standard procurement processes like tenders and purchase committee decisions could not always be followed. The Court found the denial of payment on technical grounds, specifically the non-adherence to the tender process during the pandemic, to be unacceptable. The amount in dispute, Rs. 5,22,522/-, was not disputed. The Court directed the PMCH, including the Superintendent, to make the payment of the bill amount within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for the medicines and surgical items supplied to PMCH during the COVID-19 period, despite the absence of a formal tender process or purchase committee approval? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the supply was made under extraordinary circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic, as per the Superintendent's authorization and based on official indents. He contended that denial of payment on technical grounds is unacceptable given the critical need for these supplies. Respondent's argument: The State argued that the petitioner's firm supplied the medicines and surgical equipment without following the mandatory tender process or obtaining approval from the concerned purchase committee. Quotations were also not taken from other agencies.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 01-11-2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietor of M/s Briman Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Patna and is a registered firm engaged in the business of providing medicines and surgical items having the drug license issued by the licensing authority including the registration and GST.
During the COVID period on 16.11.2020, the 2/4 petitioner submitted an application to provide medicine and surgical items on MRP to PMCH through local purchase which were required for the scheme of Ayushman Bharat Yojana, 24 x 7 IGCC Emergency and COVID-19 (Wards and Units). Considering the necessity of the medicines and surgical items during COVID period, the Superintendent of PMCH allowed the petitioner on 17.11.2020 to provide the medicines and surgical items. Thereafter, indents of the medicines and surgical items, which were not available in PMCH, were provided by respondent no. 8 to the petitioner for supply of medicines through local purchase on 20% less than the MRP.
The petitioner supplied the medicines and surgical items to the PMCH during COVID period starting from 11.01.2021 to 29.01.2021 and submitted the bill for payment of medicines and surgical items which were supplied by the petitioner on the basis of indents issued by the respondent/authority. The petitioner filed several representations for payment, but the payment has not been given to the petitioner as of today.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's firm supplied the medicines and surgical equipment without a tender process or without the 3/4 approval of the concerned purchase committee. The quotation from the concerned agency was also not taken. The bill of Rs. 5,22,522/- was submitted before the superintendent, PMCH, Patna, for its payment. When the fact of supply of medicines without a tender and without approval of the purchasing committee came in the knowledge of the Superintendent, PMCH, Patna, thereafter, the respondent no. 6 i.e., Superintendent vide his letter no. 1189 dated 01.03.2025 sought a guideline from the Health Department, Patna, with regard to the payment of bill to the petitioner and the same is still pending before the Health Department.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record.
From Perusal of Annexure 2, it appears that petitioner was allowed to supply the medicines during COVID- 19 period by the Superintendent of PMCH, Patna. There is no dispute that medicines/equipments were not supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his bill with the proper indents issued by the Competent Authority i.e., respondent no.
It is an admitted position that the medicines and the equipments were supplied during the COVID-19 period which was an extraordinary situation during which the process of 4/4 issuance of tender and decision of the Purchase Committee could not be followed. The fact remains that the medicines worth about Rs. 5,22,522/- have been supplied. Denial of payment to the petitioner by the Respondent/Authorities on the technical ground that during the COVID-19 period the process of purchase was not followed is not acceptable by this Court. There is no dispute in the amount in question.
Accordingly, I direct the PMCH including the respondent no. 6 to make the payment of the bill amount of the petitioner of worth Rs. 5,22,522/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid direction and observation, the present writ application is disposed.
HarshPandey/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.