S.S. Medical System (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs Union of India

M/S UNISAFE SYSTEMS INDIA PVT LTD., ADDRESS AT 91, K/9 RAUT ESTATE S V ROAD OPP VENKATESH MANDIR KALBADEVI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA INDIA - 400002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES 1956 ACT.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KUMAR M N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

¶32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/02/2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN FAVOUR OF R-3 ON THE GEM ONLINE PORTAL, REJECTING THE TECHNICAL BIO/DISQUALIFYING THE PETITIONER AND ISSUING AN WORK ORDER ONLINE AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:5805 WP No. 6629 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Respondent No.2-Institute has floated tender for supply of Microwave Medical Waste Disinfection System of 60L capacity- Quantity of 1 number in terms of notification dated 17.10.2022 specifying certain eligibility criteria thereto, as per Annexures-C and D.

¶40

It appears that after evaluation of tender, respondent No.3 has been held to be a successful bidder and the supply contract has been awarded/granted to him. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court specifically to condition specified with respect to the experience at clause-15 of the general document (Annexure-C), submits that the petitioner possesses the experience criteria as envisaged in clause-15 of the General Document. While respondent No.3 has not furnished any iota of evidence of he possessing such experience, yet the respondent No.2-Institution has proceeded to award the contract to respondent No.3, which is arbitrary. He further submits that though initially the petitioner was the sole bidder,

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5805 WP No. 6629 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

respondent No.2-Institution extended the period of tender by a

¶45

week with an intention of depriving the petitioner of his entitlement to be awarded with the contract. He points out to the technical evaluation carried out by the respondent No.2 is contrary to the provisions of the terms of the bidding. He refers to clause-12 of the tender document to contend that the demonstration of the quoted model equipment is required to be held at the Institute during the technical evaluation which has never been done. However, the demonstration was sought at the premise of the petitioner, which thus runs contrary to the terms of the tender. On these three counts, he seeks intervention of this Court.

¶46

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, referring to the statement of objections and the documents produced therewith submits that the tender evaluation includes the technical evaluation, in that, the demonstration is required to be made in the presence of the end-user. It is only on the satisfaction of the end-user the product will be accepted or rejected and the decision taken on this matter will be final warranting no interference. As regards the bonafides of the petitioner, he draws attention to page

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5805 WP No. 6629 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

No.54 of the writ petition which is an undertaking given by the respondent in a required format declaring that the firm of the petitioner has not been debarred/blacklisted/prosecuted by any State/Central Government Department for breach of any agreement. Juxtaposing the said document, learned counsel draws attention of this Court to the document produced at page Nos.12 and 13 of the statement of objections produced at Annexure-R1 to point out that the petitioner's name is listed amongst the suspended buyers for the period prior to the petitioner participating in the present notification. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of he having been suspended earlier, disentitling him from participating in the process. He also points out to a Communication at Annexure-R2 which is addressed by the Joint Director and Superintendent of Sant Baba Guru Ghasidas Yo Smriti Government Hospital, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, which had apparently complained about the performance and supply of the machines made by the petitioner. Pointing out on these three aspects, learned counsel for the respondent No.2Institution submits that the petitioner was not entitled for the grant of tender.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:5805 WP No. 6629 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Heard and perused the records.

¶54

The dispute apparently pertains to awarding of the tender by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3. Though the petitioner has raised the ground of respondent No.3 not having satisfied the experience criteria provided in clause15 of the notification, no material is placed in this regard. However, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the paragraph No.38 of the writ petition to contend that there is an averment made regarding the respondent No.3 not having any experience as required under the tender document. Perusal of the said paragraph would not indicate any such categorical averment made in the petition regarding respondent No.3 not having any experience as required.

¶55

That apart Clause-11 and Clause-12 of the tender document as noted above, indeed mentions regarding requirement of demonstration of the equipment to be supplied by the parties. Paragraph No.16 of the statement of objections filed by respondent No.2 indicates that such demonstration was made in the presence of the end-user, it is only thereafter the

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:5805 WP No. 6629 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

equipment supplied by the petitioner found not to be in order and specification.

¶60

Issues raised by the parties are disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the writ petition of this nature.

¶61

The aforesaid aspect of the matter being as already

¶62

noted above is disputed question of fact, this Court declines to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, petition is dismissed .

¶63

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶64

RL

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

S.S. Medical System (India) Pvt. Ltd, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S. Medical System (India) Pvt. Ltd, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Primrose Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

N.Ramaswamy Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Kavitharaj Vs the Ministry of Public Works Department

Smt. Ningamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri H S Krishnamachar Vs the Government of India

Jolarpettai Mathan Lara Vs State of Karnataka