Renuka Diagnostics vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was ineligible because it had not obtained Final NABL Certification, only registration, which did not meet the NIT's requirement. The Court found that Clause 5.1.1 of the NIT did not prescribe that the NABL/NABH accredited laboratory had to be located within the State of Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 3 possessed such an accredited laboratory at Navi Mumbai, fulfilling the tender requirement. The Court also noted that the NIT did not mandate registration under the Act of 2010 for intending tenderers. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that respondent No. 3 was ineligible due to not having an accredited laboratory in Chhattisgarh, as the testing itself was conducted in an accredited laboratory. The Court declined to delve into the logistical issues of sample transportation, citing the averment that test reports were provided within 24 hours. Citing precedents like Michigan Rubber v. State of Karnataka, Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, and Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the Court held that the actions of the respondents were not arbitrary, malicious, or actuated by bias, and the decision to award the contract was justified and in line with the NIT stipulations. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Renuka Diagnostics, challenged the rejection of its bid and the subsequent award of a contract for pathology services by NTPC (respondents No. 1 & 2) to Thyrocare Technologies Limited (respondent No. 3). The Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 07.06.2022, with an estimated cost of Rs. 128.17 Lacs excluding GST for a 24-month contract, required bidders to have NABL or NABH accredited laboratories. The petitioner's bid was rejected via email on 04.08.2022, and the work order was issued to respondent No. 3 on 08.08.2022. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 3 lacked a registered laboratory in Chhattisgarh and that the tender process lacked fairness and transparency. The petitioner also claimed to have submitted an NABL registration certificate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the techno-commercial bid of the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected despite fulfilling the criteria, and whether the work order was issued to respondent No. 3 without it meeting the technical criteria, specifically concerning NABL/NABH accreditation and the location of the laboratory, as stipulated in Clause 5.1.1 of the NIT? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that respondent No. 3 was ineligible as it did not have a registered laboratory in Chhattisgarh under the Act of 2010 and lacked NABL/NABH certification in the state. They also claimed the tender process was unfair and transparent, as they could not view respondent No. 3's documents and were not informed about the techno-commercial bid opening. The petitioner asserted they had submitted an NABL registration certificate, making their rejection illegal and arbitrary. They highlighted the logistical challenges of sending samples to Navi Mumbai, potentially compromising worker health. Respondents' arguments: Respondents No. 1 & 2 argued that NABL/NABH accreditation was a minimum qualifying requirement, not state-specific, and awarded on a standard quality of testing. They stated the petitioner was ineligible as it lacked NABL certification and had only applied for it shortly before the bid opening. They also contended that respondent No. 3 met the technical criteria, possessing an NABL/NABH accredited laboratory at Navi Mumbai, and that the NIT did not require the laboratory to be located in Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 3 adopted the submissions of respondents No. 1 & 2.