Disposed

Sunil Yadav v. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital

Delhi HC12 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/15514/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent hospital to finalize the tender process for operating two kiosks within six weeks after prima facie accepting the petitioner's allegations of procedural irregularities and non-disclosure of complaints against bidders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to finalize the tender process within six weeks in accordance with law.

Sunil Yadav Vs Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~ A-1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15514/2024 & CM APPL.65147/2024

¶4

SUNIL YADAV .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Joydeep Sarma, Advocate with Mr.Kaushal Kapoor, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL .....Respondent Through: Mr.Sameer Vashisht, ASC (Civil) with Ms.Harshita Nathrani, Advocate along with Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, AMS(A) and Mr.Gautam Arora, ADO.

¶8

% Date of Decision: 12^th November, 2024

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)

¶13

CM APPLs.65148-65149/2024 (Exemption)

¶14

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C) 15514/2024 & CM APPL.65147/2024

¶17

Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent/Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital to open the financial bid of the petitioner and finalize the tender dated 12^th June, 2024 for operating two kiosks at the premises of respondent hospital.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:13.11.2024 18:15:48

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

W.P.(C) 15514/2024

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to the failure of the respondent to open the bids of the subject tender, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 11645 of 2024. He states that on 29^th August, 2024, technical bids were opened and it was informed by the respondent that the financial bids will be opened on 02^nd September, 2024. He states that in the circumstance, the petitioner withdrew the previous writ petition being W.P.(C) 11645 of 2024.

¶23

He states that despite its commitment, the respondent failed to open financial bids on 02^nd September, 2024. He states that the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 17^th September, 2024 to the respondent urging it to open financial bids. He states that in its reply dated 24^th September, 2024, the respondent stated that it is in receipt of complaints/representations against the bidders, including the petitioner. He states that vide notice dated 04^th October, 2024, the petitioner requested the respondent to supply copies of complaint but there has been no response so far.

¶24

He alleges that the respondent is manipulating the tender process to favour the current licensee of the canteen. He contends that the respondent is obligated to complete the tender process as per law in a transparent and time bound manner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, has, today in Court, handed over a copy of the status report dated 12^th November, 2024, wherein it has been stated, “... it has come to the notice of the hospital at a later stage that under the delegation of financial power rules 2021 of GNCTD, the Medical Director of the respondent Hospital does not possess the powers to allot the kiosks for which tender has been floated. Hence, clarification has been sought from our Administrative Department ie

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:13.11.2024 18:15:48

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

W.P.(C) 15514/2024

¶30

Health and Family welfare Department GNCTD in this regard and the same is awaited.... ”. The same is taken on record.

¶31

During the hearing, it transpires that the current licensee of the canteen has been in possession of the canteen for the last twenty eight (28) years, even though a limited tenure tender has been floated in the year 1996. 9. Prima facie, there seems a ring of truth in the allegation made by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶32

Consequently, this Court disposes of the present writ petition along with applications with a direction to the respondent to finalise the tender process in question within six (06) weeks in accordance with law. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶33

MANMOHAN, CJ

¶34

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶35

NOVEMBER 12, 2024 TS

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:13.11.2024 18:15:48

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

W.P.(C) 15514/2024

Sunil Yadav v. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Yadav v. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Arora Vs Delhi Development Authority

Panchhi Petha Store Vs Union of India & Ors.

Saman Khanam Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Ashneer Grover Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms Educational and Welfare Trust Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs Office of the District and Session Judge Hq & Anr.

District Kabaddi Association Rohtak & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rizwan Ahmed & Ors. Vs Airtel Tower Department & Ors.

Galvano India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India Ministry of Railways a Nd Anr.

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Vs Ani Media Private Limited and Ors.

M/S Kenge Construction Company & Anr. Vs National Buildings Construction Corporation & Ors.

Kabir Paharia Vs National Medical Commission and Ors.

Shri Prit Pal Singh Bhatia Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies Delhi & Ors.