C.W.P. No. 9771 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9771 of 2010 Frontline Electro Medical Limited ............................Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ................................... Respondents CORAM:- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh. Present:- Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of the Supply Order dated 12-4-2010 issued in favour of Respondent No.4 alleging that the petitioner is the only eligible qualified bidder having quoted the lowest rates. The case of the petitioner is that the Mission Director, C.W.P. No. 9771 of 2010 [ 2 ] National Rural Health Mission, Punjab invited tenders for the supply of 38 Single Puncture Laproscopes with Dual Control Light. The petitioner and respondent no.4 participated in the bid. The Technical bids were opened on 9-7-2009. The petitioner claims to be the sole supplier in India of the products and equipments manufactured by M/s ProMIS Medical Systems, Germany and claims to have successfully supplied, installed and maintained Medical equipments in many medical institutions and has placed on record certain certificates as Annexure P-2. It is alleged that at the time of the opening of the Technical bids, the rates quoted by both the parties were made public and the rates of the petitioner were lesser than those of respondent no.4. The petitioner in reply to the Government letters dated 27-8-2009 and 7-10-2009, submitted the required documents and detailed replies. The demonstration of the equipment was given. The petitioner claims to have been kept in dark about the status of the tender and was under the impression that the tender was being scrapped. Thereafter, the petitioner was shocked to know that the supply order had been issued in favour of respondent No.4, despite the fact that the price of the petitioner was less, compelling the petitioner to file the present petition. In response, Respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 filed a common written statement raising various preliminary objections in respect of concealment of material facts; the petitioner not being eligible for tender itself by relying upon Clause 3 of the tender which required that the party should have supplied 80% of C.W.P. No. 9771 of 2010 [ 3 ] the quantity specified (38 pieces) i.e. 30 pieces in any one of the last three years, and that there should not be any adverse report on the functioning of the item for the last two years. It was also submitted that the petitioner has not given any proof of having supplied any Laproscope for the purpose of Tubectomy, which fact was inadvertently overlooked by the Committee evaluating the technical bids. Opportunity was given twice to the petitioner to make good his eligibility and was also granted personal hearing also on 3-2-2010, but the petitioner failed to furnish any proof of his eligibility. A committee headed by the Director, Family Welfare and comprising of 4 experts also came to the conclusion that the petitioner had forged the documents as the original document showed the equipment to have been supplied by 2 companies ‘ProMIS’ and ‘Richard Wolf’, whereas the photocopy submitted by the petitioner concealed the name of ‘Richard Wolf’. Upon examination of the financial bid of respondent No.4, it was found to be more viable then that of the petitioner as respondent No.4 was giving two years free Comprehensive Maintenance Contract. Other allegations have been denied. Respondent No.4, filed a separate written statement reiterating the objections raised in the State reply and also submitted that it has successfully installed such/similar single puncture Laproscopes in the last two years. It was submitted that as the petitioner has not supplied single puncture Laproscopes for the purpose of tubectomy, hence the petitioner is ineligible to C.W.P. No. 9771 of 2010 [ 4 ] compete and the merits dismissal. No replication has been filed by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record, which was ordered to be sealed by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 1-6- 2010. Being eligible for a tender is the sine qua non. The petitioner was not eligible as successfully demonstrated by the State in its reply. Two Committees constituted by the State have gone into the matter and granted personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was also issued notices for the supply of documents and submitted his reply to the objections about its eligibility. The reply has not been placed on record by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that it had supplied 30 Single Puncture Laproscopes with Dual Control Light in the preceding three years. In fact the petitioner has never supplied the single puncture Laproscope for performing Tubectomy operations. As per the documents filed by the petitioner he had supplied Laproscopes for the purpose of urology, surgery, E&T surgery, operative Cholecystectomy, gynae surgery, paediaric Laprscopic surgery, animal husbandry and arthroscopy (joints) but the petitioner had never supplied Laproscopes for the purpose of Tubectomy. There is no reply forthcoming in respect of the forged document which has been submitted by the petitioner. A perusal of the original and the forged documents, which have been placed on record, reveals C.W.P. No. 9771 of 2010 [ 5 ] that in fact the forged document has also been got notarized. There is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner in this regard. The respondent No.4 was the sole eligible participant with his bid being the lowest in terms of the tender including Clause 26 thereof, which provides that the comparison of the bids is to be made after taking into account all the costs including the Comprehensive Maintenance Contract. However, in this case, there was no comparison possible in view of the ineligibility of the petitioner who has even participated in the tender process. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.25,000/-. The costs shall be payable to the Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. (Ashutosh Mohunta ) Judge ( Nawab Singh ) Judge 10.8.2010 rupi