- (1.) A challenge has been made to the orders both dated 09.05.2016, passed by the Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd. setting out the final list of bidders declared responsive and non -responsive and publishing the tentative comparative statement of responsive bidders.
(2.) Fundamentally the petitioner -Company is aggrieved of being excluded from consideration in respect of E -bid F.02(171)/RMSC/Procurement/Drug/NIB -02/2016/119 dated 28.01.2016. Counsel submitted that the petitioner -Company has been wrongly excluded from consideration in respect of E -bid made by it for four drugs at serial Nos.160, 342, 362 & 576 of the schedule to the E -bid on the ground of it being allegedly debarred by Gujarat Medical Service Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter GMSCL) vide order dated 01.01.2015 in respect of a single drug i.e. Polyvitamin Tablets NFI. Counsel submitted that the aforesaid debarment by GMSCL was put to challenge before the Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad whereunder vide order dated 21.07.2015, a Division Bench confined the debarment by GMSCL under its order dated 01.01.2015 only to the supplies to be made to it. It was submitted that the clarification submitted by the petitioner -Company on the issue of its debarment on 23.04.2016 as also its objection to the tentative list of bidders declared responsive and no -responsive on 05.05.2016 have not been considered by the respondents and hence the impugned orders dated 09.05.2016 are arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
(3.) Having heard the counsel for the petitioner -Company, I am of the considered view that as the petitioner -Company has an alternative remedy under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement, 2012 (hereinafter the Act of 2012), it would be more appropriate to remit it to the aforesaid remedy instead of exercising the equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even though the counsel for the petitioner -Company has very vehemently argued that the availability of the alternative remedy does not foreclose the jurisdiction of this Court more particularly as the entire process in excluding the petitioner -Company is vitiated by procedural irregularity and denial of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the exclusion of the petitioner -Company from the e -bidding process has admittedly been occasioned in terms of the order dated 09.05.2016 on an earlier decision by the Purchase Committee on 21.04.2016 rendering the clarification dated 23.04.2016 and the objections submitted by the petitioner -Company on 05.05.2016 completely redundant.;