Vinay Sachdeva vs. Pandit B D Sharma University Of Health Sciences Through Its Registrar

Facts

The petitioners, diploma holders in pharmacy, sought to participate in a tender process initiated by Pt. B.D. Sharma, University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, for the allotment of a chemist shop. They were aggrieved by conditions No. 8 and 9 of the tender document, which mandated the provision of a GST number and a valid license for the sale of drugs and medicines as essential documents for the technical bid. The petitioners had raised these grievances in a pre-bid meeting held on July 4, 2024, but their concerns were not addressed. The technical bids were scheduled to be opened on August 2, 2024. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging these conditions as arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, seeking to be considered without these requirements.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for both parties. The respondent-University, through its counsel, assured the Court that the competent authority would take cognizance of the concerns and grievances of the petitioners as set out in the petition and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Crucially, the University agreed to hear the petitioners before any such orders were passed, and a formal communication would be issued to them in advance. The respondent-University further undertook to pass appropriate orders within a week from the date of the hearing and, in any case, before the opening of the technical bids, which were scheduled for August 2, 2024. The Court expressed its confidence that the authorities would examine the matter earnestly. The Court explicitly stated that this order did not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, as the competent authority would examine the grievances strictly in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether conditions No. 8 (requiring a GST number) and No. 9 (requiring a valid license for the sale of drugs and medicine) incorporated in the tender document for the allotment of a chemist shop are arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that the aforementioned conditions were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued that as diploma holders in pharmacy, they should be allowed to participate in the tendering process without these specific requirements, as they were desirous of operating the chemist shop. They had raised these objections during the pre-bid meeting, but their concerns were not addressed. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent-University, through its counsel, submitted that in the given circumstances, it would be expedient to dispose of the petition by allowing the competent authority to consider the petitioners' grievances. They agreed to hear the petitioners before passing any orders and assured that necessary communication would be issued in advance. They also agreed to pass appropriate orders within a week from the date of the hearing and before the opening of the technical bids.