Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 24 (JK)

Ishfaq Rashid v. Union Of India

2009-02-04

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2009
1. Allotment of two sheds by Chief Executive Officer Cantonment Board, in favour of respondents No. 7 and 8 is questioned on following counts: i) That the petitioner and other intending aspirants have not been permitted to participate in the tender process. ii) Tender process has been scuttled, so as to accommodate respondents No. 7 and 8. iii) Respondents No. 7 and 8 were not possessing valid Drug License, therefore, were not eligible for allotment. 2. The object and purpose of tendering is to secure the best price, that can be achieved only when maximum eligible persons participate. For ensuring maximum participation the adequate publicity is imperative, by wide publicity intending participants get sufficient time to participate, resultantly maximum possible price is achievable. 3. Government G.B. Pant General hospital, being joint venture between Ministry of Health and Medical Education Jammu & Kashmir Government and the Ministry of Defence Badami Bagh Contonment Board and also being one of the Associated Hospital of Government Medical College Srinagar, the Cantonment Board has invited tenders viz-a-viz two sheds located outside G.B. Pant Cantonment General Hospital for running Medical shop as per terms and conditions specified in the tender documents. Tender notice has been issued on 8.10.2008. The desirous persons had to purchase the requisite forms from the office of Chief Executive Officer from 18 to 20 October 2008 and the tender forms duly filled were to reach the said office on 21.10.2008 and were also to be opened on the same date. Responding to the tender notice three persons are shown to have submitted their tender forms for shed No.1, which include respondent No.7 (highest bidder) and three persons are shown to have competed for Shed No. 2, which include respondent No.8(higher bidder). Shed No. 1 has been allotted to respondent No.7, whereas Shed No. 2 has been allotted to respondent No.8 vide Communication dated 24.10.2008 issued by respondent No.2. 4. The respondents No. 7 and 8 have executed the necessary Contract Agreement and have also deposited the security deposit amounting to Rupees three lacs each. 5. Petitioner has challenged the allotment made in favour of the respondents 7 and 8. 6. Earlier when the tender notice was issued, same was challenged by medium of petition bearing OWP No. 778/08 by four persons who are not party in this petition, but the said petition stand dismissed by this court vide order dated 22.10.2008. 5. Petitioner has challenged the allotment made in favour of the respondents 7 and 8. 6. Earlier when the tender notice was issued, same was challenged by medium of petition bearing OWP No. 778/08 by four persons who are not party in this petition, but the said petition stand dismissed by this court vide order dated 22.10.2008. Subsequent process including allotment has not been challenged by these four petitioners. 7. One of the important condition for the bidder was that the bidder must have a valid license for running a Medical shop and must have been issued by the Competent authority. The petitioner in his petition had alleged in para-8(e), that petitioner has a valid Drug License, whereas respondents 7 and 8 were not having valid license, so were not eligible. Respondents 7 and 8 respectively in their reply have stated that they possess valid Drug license, whereas petitioner does not possess any Drug License and it is because of that petitioner had not applied, though he had prepared CDR, but due to the ineligibility has not deposited the tender. Sidelining that position has filed the instant petition, claiming that he was not permitted to participate even though he had prepared the requisite CDR. 8. It is true that here has been very less participation in the tendering process, within a short time tendering process has been completed and allotment made, but the said position can be looked into only when some eligible person will challenge the same. Petitioner was not eligible at all, because petitioner was not possessing the Drug License. 9. Appearing counsel for the respondents at the very threshold challenged the locus standi of the petitioner by projecting that the petitioner does not possess the Drug license. In absence of Drug License petitioner is not eligible to compete. Faced with this position Learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked as to whether the petitioner possesses the requisite Drug License, as is required in terms of condition No.5 of the terms and conditions for the tender notice. Learned counsel could not produce Drug License. Had the petitioner been holding Drug License, at least he would have annexed the copy of the same with this petition or would produce the same. Though in the petition he has pleaded that he possesses the license, whereas respondents 7 and 8 do not possess license. But on scrutiny position is reverse. Learned counsel could not produce Drug License. Had the petitioner been holding Drug License, at least he would have annexed the copy of the same with this petition or would produce the same. Though in the petition he has pleaded that he possesses the license, whereas respondents 7 and 8 do not possess license. But on scrutiny position is reverse. Respondents 7 and 8 have placed photo copy of their respective Drug Licenses on record, which bear No. SR/16011 valid for 15.7.2006 to 14.7.2011 and Drug License No. SR 114233 valid for 26.9.2005 to 25.9.2010, which clearly shows that both respondents 7 and 8 possess the valid Drug License. The contention of the petitioner is found to be without any basis. 10. The petitioner does not possess the Drug License, which is a pre-requisite for running a Medical shop and is an important condition in terms of the conditions of the tender notice, therefore, petitioner not being eligible to compete has no locus standi to challenge the process of tendering as well as the allotment made in favour of successful bidders i.e. respondents No. 7 and 8. 11. The other points agitated in the petition are not required to be looked into, as the petitioner having no locus standi, therefore, petition is incompetent deserves dismissal on this sole count. Dismissed as such alongwith connected CMP. Interim direction dated 5.11.2008 shall now cease to be in operation.