- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Avnish Kumar, Ms. Kirti Srivastava for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Abhinav Trivedi for respondent no.3. With the consent of the parties' counsel, the petition is being decided finally. Sri Abhinav Trivedi says that in view of the facts on record, he does not intend to file counter affidavit, as the facts have already been brought on record in the counter affidavit filed by the State. A tender notice was published by the Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Raebareli, inviting tenders for supply of the Colour Doppler.
(2.) THE petitioner alongwith three more companies, namely, M/s. Medilux, M/s. Erbis Engineering Company, and M/s. Siemens Ltd. responded to the aforesaid tender notice and offered their bids. On finalization of the technical bid by the Committee constituted for the purpose, namely, the Purchase Committee, it was reported that three Companies out of four, namely, M/s. Trivitron Medical System Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner), M/s. Erbis Engineering Company, and M/s. Siemens Ltd. (respondent no.3) had qualified in the aforesaid bid. After opening of the financial bid on 20.10.09, the Purchase Committee reported that bid of M/s. Trivitron Medical System Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) was the lowest and it was decided unanimously by the Committee that the aforesaid equipment be purchased from the petitioner. This report is dated 21.10.09, which was sent by the Chief Medical Superintendent to the Chairman/ District Magistrate, Zila Swasthya Samiti, Raibareli. The District Magistrate on that very date, made an endorsement to the following effect: "M/s. Siemens ko karyadesh 013.45 par nirgat kare" Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of not awarding the contract to the petitioner and directing that the same be given to respondent no.3, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the aforesaid action, submits that the bid of respondent no.3 was much higher than the petitioner's bid and that without calling the petitioner for negotiation, something went on between the District Magistrate and the respondent no.3 and consequently, the District Magistrate overruling the recommendation made by the Purchase Committee, directed that the work order be issued to respondent no.3 and that too on a lower price as against the bid, which action is per se illegal. Submission in the alternative is that if the Purchase Committee or the District Magistrate was of the view that for any reason whatsoever any negotiation was needed amongst the participants before giving the work order to the petitioner, who was recommended by the Purchase Committee for the purpose, equal opportunity ought to have been afforded to all the participants. Ms. Kirti Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, has drawn the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit, saying that the District Magistrate found that respondent no.3 had already supplied the Colour Doppler in the District Hospital, Pratapgarh, which was found to be satisfactory and is still functional, therefore, though the bid of respondent no.3 was higher than the bid of the petitioner, but the same was reduced to Rs. 13,45,000/- for giving the contract to respondent no.3 and, therefore, the work order was directed to be issued to it.
(3.) SRI Abhinav Trivedi, appearing for respondent no.3 says that, as a matter of fact, it was not only the quality of the equipment, but also the workmanship and after sale service which was taken into account by the District Magistrate while issuing the said order, but he does not dispute that at no point of time, the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to negotiate.;