Dismissed¶25

Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary for Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025WP/5202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 5202/2024, Bombay HC, decided 17 June 2025 (Aradhe CJ & Marne J): dismissal of challenge by Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd. to cancellation (14 Oct 2024, Joint Director Health Services) of its hemodialysis-services work order under Maharashtra Commissionerate of Health Services E-Tender of 8 May 2023; non-signing of MoU, unanswered show cause notice of 20 Feb 2024, suppression of material facts by petitioner; cancellation held consistent with tender terms, not arbitrary; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The action taken against the Petitioner (cancellation of the work order after it failed to sign the MoU and commence the hemodialysis services) was in consonance with the terms and conditions of the tender and cannot be termed arbitrary or unfair. ¶24

Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary for Ministry of Health and Family Welfare — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

JPP 13. WP 5202.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed JYOTIPRAKASH by JYOTIPRAKASHPAWAR PAWAR Date: 2025.06.18 10:42:57 +0530

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5202 OF 2024

¶5

Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra through Secretary for Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Maruti P. Mhavarkar for the Petitioner

¶9

Ms. P.H. Kantharia, Govt. Pleader with Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5

¶10

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATE : 17 JUNE 2025

¶12

Order (Per Chief Justice) :

¶13

Petitioner is a Company which is engaged in the business of providing hemodialysis services.

¶14

In this Petition, the Petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 14^th October 2024, by which the work order issued in favour of the Petitioner has been cancelled.

¶15

Facts giving rise to filing of this Petition in nut shell are that on 8^th May 2023, the Respondents floated E-Tender for appointment of service provider for providing hemodialysis services in 50 and above bedded

¶16

1/3

¶17

JPP 13. WP 5202.2024.doc

¶18

hospitals under the Commissionerate of Health Services, Maharashtra. In response to the notice inviting tender, the Petitioner submitted its bid. The Respondents, thereupon, by a communication dated 24^th November 2023, informed that the contract has been awarded to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, thereupon, submitted a performance guarantee on 8^th December 2023. A draft Memorandum of Understanding (for short MoU ) was sent on 25^th January 2024 to the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner did not sign the draft MoU. Thereupon, a show cause notice dated 20^th February 2024 was issued to the Petitioner for not performing its obligations under the contract. The Petitioner did not submit any reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Therefore, by an order dated 14^th October 2024, the Joint Director, Health Services, cancelled the work order issued in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to perform its part of the contract. In the aforesaid factual background, this Petition has been filed.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the action of the Respondents in issuing the impugned communication is arbitrary, capricious and whimsical and the directions be issued to the Respondents to sign the MoU. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Pleader has supported the action taken by the Respondents.

¶20

We have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record.

¶21

2/3

¶22

JPP 13. WP 5202.2024.doc

¶23

In the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner was appointed as service provider for providing hemodialysis services in 50 and above bedded hospitals under the Commissionerate of Health Services. The Petitioner did not take steps to sign the MoU. Thereupon, a show cause notice dated 20^th February 2024 was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not submit any reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. It is also pertinent to mention here that the fact of issue of show cause notice was not mentioned in the Writ Petition. Thus, the Petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts.

¶24

The Petitioner did not sign the MoU and did not commence the work of providing the hemodialysis services in the hospitals. Thereupon, the work order issued in favour of the Petitioner has been cancelled. The action against the Petitioner has been taken in consonance with the terms and conditions of the tender which, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as arbitrary or unfair.

¶25

In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in the Petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶26

( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. )

¶27

( CHIEF JUSTICE )

¶28

3/3

Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary for Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary for Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagtik Marathi Natyadharmi Nirmata Sangh vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Sanjaykumar Madhusudan Yadav vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Shivshakti Enterprises through Proprietor Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India

Shailesh Gandhi vs Vijay Kumbhar

Ndt Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Sewerage Operation Department)

Kishor Ramchandra Oza vs State of Maharashtra