Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 395 (UTT)

Ravindra Jugran v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-27

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. Petitioner has approached this Court in purported public interest litigation seeking the following prayers: “(a) For a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and / or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondents, ordering or directing Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to cancel, withdraw the scheme declaring the said scheme as frivolous and being initiated with the intention to favour certain persons in the Government. (b) For a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and / or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondents, ordering or directing Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to cancel, withdraw and / or to set aside the entire tender process initiated by Respondent No. 4 for the MSBY Scheme and to forthwith commence and / or take steps to initiate a fresh bidding process for the said Scheme; (c) For a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondents, restraining Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 from acting in furtherance of, or taking any steps pursuant to or in implementation of the contract illegally awarded to Respondent No. 4; (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 and Respondent No. 4 from acting in furtherance of, or taking any steps pursuant to or in implementation of the contract illegally awarded to Respondent No. 2; (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders or directions ordering and directing the Respondents to forthwith produce and disclose to this Hon’ble Court the entire records, material and / or documents pertaining to the issue of the tender for the Scheme by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 1, 2 and 3. (f) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct an independent inquiry / investigation to be conducted in the matter of the issue of the various tenders for the implementation of the MSBY Scheme floated by the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 from time to time, as well as the illegal awarding of the subject Tender to the Respondent No. 4.” 2. The complaint is against selection of the 4th respondent company under the Mukhya Mantri Swasthya Bima Yojana. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the State. 4. The complaint essentially is that to suit the interest of the 4th respondent Company, the Government modified one of the conditions in the Tender Notification, as per which, the tenderer must have one year experience in Government Yojana. Relevant clause of the condition reads as follows: “(e) The insurance company must have operated at least one Government Sponsored Health Insurance scheme for at least one complete year in any of the last three years.” 5. According to the learned Advocate General, many other companies also participated and the 4th respondent Company was selected. It is also pointed out that in fact, the other tenderers did not have any complaint in the matter. In this case, we do not think that we should allow the petitioner to pursue the public interest case. It is not as if any of the companies, which have participated, has thought it fit to challenge the selection of the 4th respondent Company. 6. In such circumstances, we do not think that, at the instance of the petitioner, we should allow this matter to be pursued further. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.