Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 188 (JK)

KRSNAA Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. State

2017-04-11

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue writ of nature of certiorari quashing the reference No. NIT/JKMSCL/MACH/ MRI/2017/229 dated 01.03.2017 issued by the official respondent No. 2, whereby the respondent No. 2 has invited the e-Bids for the finalization of Annual Rate Contract for the procurement of 105 TESLA MRI Machine in the Government Medical Complex and associates Hospital, Jammu. (b) Issue writ order direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to go ahead with the tender process as the same has been already allotted to the petitioner firm and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court till the time same is adjudicated by the Hon’ble Court. (c) And further writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to allow the petitioner to install the machine including MRI 1.5 T, DR system in the Super Specialty Hospital, Jammu, for which the contract has already been made with the petitioner firm.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir for installing Diagnostics Equipments in the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu under Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode and that contract has been cancelled on 31st August, 2016. 3. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order in OWP No. 1342/2016. The case has been admitted, but no interim order, protecting the right of the petitioner has been passed. In that case, the respondent-State is yet to file its objections. 4. While the matter stands thus, the respondents herein have issued the impugned Tender Notification dated 01.03.2017, a bid for procurement of 1.5 TESLA MRI Machine in Government Medical Complex and Super Specialty Hospital, Jammu. 5. The petitioner pleads that the Government is estopped from going on, with this tender, as he has an arrangement with the Government on Public Private Partnership arrangement. The petitioner pleads that he has invested huge amount and he will suffer financially if the new machines are installed. 6. The question of the petitioner having a right to continue the Public Private Partnership (PPP) would arise only after he succeeds in the writ petition (OWP No.1342/2016) where petitioner challenges the cancellation order. The petitioner pleads that he has invested huge amount and he will suffer financially if the new machines are installed. 6. The question of the petitioner having a right to continue the Public Private Partnership (PPP) would arise only after he succeeds in the writ petition (OWP No.1342/2016) where petitioner challenges the cancellation order. The petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot stand in the way of the Government Hospitals to establish its own medical facility to cater to the needs of the public at large. 7. The Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu in its present state is said to be in a very bad shape and has to upgrade itself for providing proper medical assistance. The Government alone has to decide if it wants to continue the Public Private Partnership Project if it is viable. This issue is the subject-matter of the writ petition. However, that cannot stand in the way of the Government to provide facilities in the nature of medical equipments so as to cater to the needs of the patients visiting the hospital. This is taken in the Larger Public Interest and the petitioner’s plea will be insignificant in this regard. 8. The petitioner, by way of the instant writ petition, cannot resist the respondents-department from establishing appropriate medical facilities in Government Medical College, Hospital, Jammu. Further, his right to participate in the fresh tender is not curtailed, even if the earlier Public Private Partnership Project has been cancelled for good and sufficient reasons. It is always open to the petitioner to pursue the writ petition, challenging the cancellation order for appropriate remedy. It is not as if that the petitioner is denied of his legal right to establish his right. The notice inviting tender from the eligible persons at the threshold will not be interfered by the Court. 9. Furthermore, in larger public interest, there is no prima facie case on merits to restrain the respondents from inviting the bids for procurement and installing of MRI Machines in the Government Hospitals which is of more paramount than the right of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner is already pursuing the legal remedy against the alleged wrong committed, he has no locus to challenge the present tendering process for installation of a new equipments, which is purely the prerogative of the State. There is no vested right in favour of the petitioner to stall other welfare measures. 10. The petitioner is already pursuing the legal remedy against the alleged wrong committed, he has no locus to challenge the present tendering process for installation of a new equipments, which is purely the prerogative of the State. There is no vested right in favour of the petitioner to stall other welfare measures. 11. In view of the above facts, the writ petition is found bereft of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.