Dismissed¶¶40

M/S Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Apr 2025CWP/4895/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

E-tender for outsourcing of sanitation services, Civil Hospital Thural, District Kangra, H.P.; rejection of bid for want of three years' sanitation experience; eligibility criteria — 30/50-bedded government/private hospital, empanelled by State of H.P. for institutions up to 100 beds; Clause-U scope of service; indoor versus outdoor sanitation; garbage lifting; Fortis Hospital inquiry response; Annexure P-3, P-4; certiorari; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja, JJ.; neutral citation 2025:HHC:10158; decided 09.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; petition and pending applications dismissed, parties left to bear their own costs. ¶¶40

M/S Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition and pending applications dismissed, parties left to bear their own costs.

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' rejection of the petitioner's tender bid for want of the requisite three years' sanitation experience was arbitrary, notwithstanding the two experience certificates relied upon (Annexure P-4 for 01.08.2016–31.03.2019 and the Kaza certificate for FY 2021-2022 and 2022-2023). +1 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

Having called for and perused the record on 07.04.2025, the Court found the petition clearly misconceived, the bid having been rejected for want of the requisite experience of three years in providing sanitation service.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The experience rendered at Fortis Hospital — confined to collecting general waste garbage from outside and cleaning and sanitisation of the outside building only, not the interior building — cannot be counted as experience of providing sanitation service for the purpose of the tender's eligibility criterion.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

Clause-U of the tender document sets out the responsibility for sanitation, and the experience sought by the respondents is for the scope of service as set out in Clause-U; that scope therefore clearly excludes any experience of providing sanitation service outside the building or collecting garbage, and the petitioner's contrary argument fails.ratio¶¶37
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it along with the pending applications, if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.ratio¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No. 4895 of 2025, decided 09.04.2025) by M/s Sanjay Kumar Government Contractor seeking certiorari to quash the proceedings of the e-tender opening Committee meeting of 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) rejecting its bid for outsourcing of sanitation services at Civil Hospital, Thural (District Kangra, H.P.), and a direction to accept its tender. Eligibility required at least three years' experience of sanitation services in a 30/50-bedded hospital in H.P., with State empanelment for tenders up to 100-bedded institutions. Certificates relied on: Himachal Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (01.08.2016–31.03.2019, garbage lifting, sanitation & hygiene) and Block Medical Officer, Spiti (Civil Hospital Kaza, 50-bedded, FY 2021-22 and 2022-23). On inquiry, Fortis Hospital clarified the engagement covered only collection of general waste from outside and cleaning/sanitisation of the outside building, not interiors. Held (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., oral): such outdoor/garbage-collection experience is excluded by the scope of service defined in Clause-U of the tender, and cannot count as the required sanitation experience. Petition found misconceived and dismissed, along with pending applications; parties to bear their own costs.

¶1

2025:HHC:10158

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

CWP No. 4895 of 2025

¶4

Date of decision: 09.04.2025

¶5

M/s Sanjay Kumar Government Contractor …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents Co ram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy. A.G.,lta, Dy. A.G.

¶12

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶13

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

¶14

(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned proceedings of the meeting of e-tender opening Committee held on 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) qua the petitioner.

¶15

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to accept the tender document of the petitioner and provide him sanitation services for the Civil Hospital Thural, District Kangra, H.P. in accordance with law

¶16

¶17

On 07.04.2025, we called for the record and having perused the same we find that the present petition is clearly misconceived. The reason being that respondent No. 3 had invited e-tender for outsourcing of sanitation service in Civil Hospital, Thural. The eligibility criteria for participation in the tender was that one must have experience of at least three years of providing sanitation service in at least 30/50 bedded government hospital/private hospital located in the State of H.P. and duly empanelled by the State of H.P. for tenders for Health Institutions upto 100 bedded hospital.

¶18

In support of the aforesaid condition, the petitioner had appended a certificate dated 31.03.2019 (Annexure P-4), which reads as under:-

¶19

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

¶20

Mr. Sanjay Kumar s/o Sh. Sukhdev Ward No. 4-Post Office Kangra, Tehsil Kangra, Distt. Kangra(H.P.)

¶21

This is certify that Mr. Sanjay Kumar s/o Sh. Sukhdev has been worked with our organisation Himachal Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in garbage lifting, Sanitation & Hygiene contractor from 01 August, 2016 to 31 Mar. 2019.

¶22

During the job he found very hard worker and having full knowledge about his work.

¶23

We will wish him in his future endeavours.

¶24

For Himachal Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. sd/Chief Finance Officer”

¶25

¶26

Another certificate issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Spiti at Kaza, Hiamchal Pradesh, which reads as under:-

¶27

“Experience Certificate

¶28

It is certified that M/s Sanjay Kumar, Sanitation Contractor Ward No. 4, MC-Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh has provided his services as Sanigtation Contractor in Civil Hospital Kaza (50 Bedded) during the Financial Year 2021-2022 and Financial Year 2022-2023 and during the last two years his work as Sanitation Contractor in Civil Hospital Kaza has been better and satisfactory, hence experience certificate is issued.

¶29

Sd/Block Medical Officer Spiti Location Qazi”

¶30

The respondents rejected the bid so offered by the petitioner on the ground that he lacks necessary experience of three years in providing sanitation service.

¶31

It is vehemently argued by Shri Goldy Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection so made by the respondents is arbitrary as is evident from the two certificates appended above, which clearly go to indicate that the petitioner had carried out similar project of sanitation service from 01.08.2016 to 31.03.2019 (Annexure P-4) and thereafter 2021-2023 at Kaza.

¶32

The records go to reveal that an inquiry was got conducted by the respondents regarding the certificate

¶33

¶34

(Annexure P-4) and in response to the inquiry so made by the respondents, the Fortis Hospital, had clearly stated as under:-

¶35

“This to confirm that the said vendor is appointed for collecting general waste garbage from outside, and cleaning and sanitisation of the outside building only and not in the interior building.”

¶36

Meaning thereby, the experience rendered in the Fortis Hospital, cannot be counted for the purpose for considering the same as experience of providing sanitation service. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that there is no condition in the tender form whereby experience for providing indoor sanitation service alone could be treated as ‘ experience ’ and thereby the experience acquired for sanitation work outside the building or collecting garbage would be excluded.

¶37

Though the argument at first blush appears to be attractive, however, when Clause-U of the tender document is perused, which sets out the responsibility for sanitation, it is evidently clear that the experience that is sought for by the respondents is for the scope of service as set out in Clause-U, which clearly excludes the experience, if any of providing sanitation service outside the building or collecting of garbage.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the

¶39

¶40

same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶41

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶42

(Sushil Kukreja) 9^th April, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)

M/S Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bilaspur Jp Udhyog Visthapit Avm Prabhavit Sahkari Sabha Simiti Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Hp State Consumer Fora Employees Welfare Association Vs the Principal Secretary (Fcs and Ca) and Others

Sat Pal Vs Hrtc and Another

Anil Kumar Joshi and Another Vs NHAI and Others

State of Hp Vs Shiv Kumar

Samrti Koundal Vs Sartish Kumar