Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - (1.) The brief facts which are culled out from the writ petition are that the respondent-Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as 'RMSCL') a Company owned and controled by the State Government, invited bids for supply of surgical equipment and sutures which included Regular Sutures, Synthetic Absorbable Sutures and Synthetic Absorbable Antibacterial Triclosan Coated Sutures vide its NIT dated 15.07.2016. The E-bids for the contract-cum-supply and empanelment was invited. The last date for submission of online bids was 28.8.2016 which was later on extended upto 14.10.2016. As per the said NIT, a comprehensive bid consisting of technical and financial bids was to be submitted in two parts known as technical bids and price bids. Bidders were to be either manufactures having valid manufacturing lincense or direct importers holding valid import license with three years market standing as manufacturer/importer. All bidders were required to submit attested copy of the license duly approved as well as Market Standing Certificate issued by Licensing Authority. Further it was submitted that price bid of only those bidders will be opened who were eligible of technical evaluation and inspection. The technical evaluation was to be conducted in two stages namely; evaluation on basis of document and secondly on examination/testing of samples for the purpose of two sample units of each quoted items which were also required to be quoted alongwith the bid.
(2.) Petitioner and the respondent have admittedly applied and submitted their bids for all kinds of sutures. The item Synthetic Absorbable Antibacterial Triclosan Coated Sutures was amended and the word "Triclosan" was deleted and thus Synthetic Absorbable Antibacterial Coated Sutures were required which related to items at Serial No.R-68 to R-74 in the total items as serially mentioned in the bid. The petitioner has challenged the inclusion for grant of bid in favour of respondent No.6 Company so far as Item No.R-68 to R-74 are concerned. While the petitioner Company has been placed as L-2, respondent No.6 Company (earlier named as Covidien Healthcare India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as CHIPL) which thereafter merged with India Medtronic Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'IMPL') and it was placed on record as respondent No.6, has been placed at L-1 with regard to the said items.
(3.) Case of the petitioner before this Court is that respondent No.2 opened the technical bids on its website on 14.10.2016 wherein CHIPL quoted its sutures with brand name "Polysorb" in both kinds of sutures apart from petitioner and respondent No.6, one other bidder i.e. respondent No.7 had quoted for Item No.R-68 to R-74. It is one of the submission of the petitioner Company that the CHIPL had quoted the same product in both the categories i.e. Absorbable sutures as well as Synthetic Absorable Antibacterial Coated Sutures. It is his submission that when a departmental communication was issued by the respondent-Corporation for sending the samples of the three bidders for testing to an accredited empaneled lab, namely Oasis Test House Limited for requisite clinical evaluation/testing, the CHIPL product was returned with a note that the lab does not have the testing facilities as per the testing procedure provided by the CHIPL vide its letter dated 23.12.2016. At the same time sample wise test reports of petitioner and the other bidder namely respondent No.7 were tested for anti bacterial efficacy and it was found that product of the petitioner as well as respondent No.7 was possessing anti-bacterial efficacy of coated sutures via zone of inhibition. It was thus found to be responsive for four bacteria's namely :- (1) Staphylococcus Aureus (2) Escherichia Coli (3) Staphylococcus epidermidis (4) Salmonella Abony;