[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Medicare Environmental Management … vs State Of Bihar (Deleted Vide Order Dated … on 7 May, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Partha Sarthy, Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10325 of 2023
======================================================
Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956/2013 through its Authorized Representative Shri
Ankit Kumar, S/o Shri Yogendra Prashad Shah, aged about 28 years, R/o
Adarsh Colony, East of Janta Flats, Bhootnath Road, B.H. Colony, PS-
Kankarbagh, District-Patna, Bihar.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.
(Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were deleted vide order dated 28.07.2023)
3. The Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, Plot
No. NS-B/2, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh
Bhawan, Plot No. NS-B/2, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna,
Bihar.
5. M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. having its Registered Office of 189 Sector-
D, Shantipuram, Phaaphamnu, Prayagraj- 211012 (UP).
… … Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12296 of 2023
======================================================
M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. having its Registered office at 189 Sector-D,
Shantipuram, Phaaphamnu, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) through its Authorized
Representative, namely, Pawan Kumar Singh, Male, Aged About 36 Years,
Son of Ram Kumar Singh, Resident of 40 no Gomti, New Basti, Gohri, P.S.-
Phaphamau, District-Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh).
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
4. The Bihar State Pollution Control Board, through the Member-Secretary,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
2/26
Parivesh Bhawan, Plot No. NS-B/2 Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra,
Patna
5. The Member-Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh
Bhawan, Plot No. NS-B/2 Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna.
… … Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10325 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Mdan Kumar, Adv.
For the BSPCB : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv.
For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ajay, GA-5
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12296 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Sushila Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
For the BSPCB : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 07-05-2025Both the writ petitions have been taken up
together and are being disposed off by this common
judgment.
2. Heard Shri Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10325 of
2023 (Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
3/26
Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, the
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in C.W.J.C.
No. 12296 of 2023 (M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors.). The respondents/Board and
the State have also been represented through their
respective lawyers.
3. In both the aforementioned writ
petitioners, the prayer is for setting aside the order
dated 26.06.2023 issued under the signature of the
Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board,
Patna, whereby the entire tender, bearing NIT No.
CL/884/2022/2010 dated 22.12.2022, for the entire
seven locations was cancelled despite the
respondents/Board having issued the letter of selection
for locations at Muzaffarpur and Bhagalpur in favour of
Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.
(petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10325 of 2023) and for
locations Gopalganj and Purnia in favour of M/s Sangam
Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
4/26
2023).
4. In both the writ petitions, the further
challenge is to the fresh notice inviting e-Tender for the
same locations for setting up and operating a Common
Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (hereinafter
referred to as the CBWTF).
5. In accordance with the Bio-Medical Waste
Management Rules, 2016, which, inter alia provides for
treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste, a revised
guideline was published for setting up of CBWTF, which
mandated taking into account the gap analysis of the
generation and treatment of bio-medical waste.
Pursuant to this assessment, the Bihar Pollution Control
Board was of the view that there was need for setting up
seven CBWTF, one each in Patna, Gopalganj,
Madhubani, Purnia, Sasaram, Muzaffarpur and
Bhagalpur.
6. A notice inviting e-Tender for selection of
entrepreneurs/service provider for setting up and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
5/26
operating Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility
(CBWTF) in Bihar was floated on 22.12.2022. By a
single tender, bids were invited for setting up and
operating seven CBWTFs. at seven different locations
referred to above. The bidding was in two parts, namely,
technical and financial. Both the bids had to be
submitted simultaneously through e-procurement portal.
7. In the bid, referred to above, the
petitioner/Medicare Environmental Management Pvt.
Ltd. (C.W.J.C. No. 10325/2023) was found technically
qualified for Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Patna and
Sasaram, whereas M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd.
(petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of 2023) was found to
be technically qualified for Muzaffarpur, Sasaram,
Gopalganj and Purnia. Both the petitioners furnished
their financial bids for each of the locations. The
financial bid consisted of ten columns and the bidders
were required to fill the quoted rate of collection,
transportation, treatment and disposal of bio-medical
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
6/26
waste in column Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In column – 3,
the rate for non-bedded HCFs were to be given on
monthly basis. In column – 4, the rate for standalone
lab/diagnostic centre were to be given on monthly basis.
In column – 5, the rate for veterinary hospitals were to
be given on monthly basis. In column – 6, the rate for
PHC/APHC. were to be given on per Kg. basis. In
column – 7, the rate for HCFs. of less than ten beds were
to be given on monthly basis and in column – 9, the rate
for HCFs. of more than ten beds were to be given on per
bed/per day basis. The rates quoted in column Nos. 3,
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were to be added up and the resulting
value was to be divided by six (6) and this value was to
be entered in column – 9. Any bidder quoting minimum
value in column – 9 would be declared successful.
However, this process had a caveat that before division,
the rate quoted in column – 8 was to be multiplied by
thirty (30) and the resulting value was to be taken for
summation with respect to column No. 8.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
7/26
8. The financial bids of the petitioners for the
locations referred to above were found to be
requirement-compliant. They were selected on the basis
of the rates quoted by them in column – 9 of the
financial bid. After their selection for the respective
locations, referred to above, the petitioners were issued
selection letters.
9. It was only after the issuance of the
selection letters, that the Bihar Pollution Control Board
came to take notice that the rate quoted by M/s Sangam
Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of
2023) in column – 9 was erroneous as he had only added
the rates quoted in rest of the columns and had divided
the result of such addition by six (6) and the result of
such division was mentioned in column – 9. He was
required to multiply the rate quoted in column – 8 by
thirty (30) before dividing the total summation by six
(6). It was, thus, found that M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt.
Ltd. (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of 2023) was
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
8/26
wrongly declared to be L-1 for locations Gopalganj and
Purnia and, in fact, the rate quoted by one M/s Superb
Hygienic Disposals would otherwise have been the
lowest.
10. The Bihar Pollution Control Board,
therefore, had few options in order to remedy the
defect/error. The first of the options was to cancel the
selection letter of M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd.
(petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of 2023) and declare
the L-2 for such locations as L-1. The other option was
to cancel the result of the two locations and issue fresh
tender for the said two locations. And the third option
was to cancel the entire tender and issue fresh tender
separately and not in cluster.
11. After evaluation of the afore-noted
options which the Board had, a decision was taken to
cancel the entire tender as it was a composite tender
(one tender for all the seven locations) and a fresh
tender to be issued for each of the locations and not a
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
9/26
composite tender.
12. This decision has been challenged by both
the petitioners as being arbitrary, unreasonable and
based on no logic.
13. It has been argued on behalf of the
petitioners that before cancelling the entire tender, the
successful bidders ought to have been noticed.
14. The further submission on behalf of the
petitioner/Medicare Environmental Management Pvt.
Ltd. (C.W.J.C. No. 10325/2023) was that for one of the
bidders, namely, M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd.,
having submitted an erroneous and wrongly filled-up
financial bid, the entire tender ought not to have been
cancelled. The Board would have had some justification
for cancelling the tender with respect to locations at
Gopalganj and Purnia, but there would absolutely be no
rationale for cancelling the entire tender even if it be a
composite tender of all the seven locations. In this
circumstance, because of the wrong assessment of L-1
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
10/26
bidder for locations Gopalganj and Purnia, which was
eventuated because of the faulty submission of financial
bid by M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in
C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of 2023), the effort of the Board
should have been to segregate the respective tenders
and go ahead with the selection of the bidders in whose
financial bids there was no problem and which selection
was completely unaffected by the wrong bidding of M/s
Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.
12296 of 2023).
15. In support of the afore-noted arguments,
the learned Senior Advocates for the petitioners have
submitted that the annulment of the entire bidding
process was not be resorted to that casually. Merely
having the power with the Bihar Pollution Control Board
of rejecting the bids would not entitle it to exercise such
power arbitrarily. There was no reason for the Board to
have ignored the already accepted bid and go for re-
tendering for some fault on the part of one of bidders,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
11/26
which could be segregated as the composite tender was
for seven locations. In Government contracts, the
authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and
rule of law while dealing with contractual matters. The
“Right to Equality” under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India is breached whenever an arbitrary decision is
taken. No casual ground would justify cancellation of an
earlier tender and the decision to re-tender the entire
process.
16. In support of the afore-noted
contentions, reference has been made of the decision of
the Supreme Court in Mihan India Ltd. Vs. GMR
Airports Ltd. & Ors. : (2022) 19 SCC 69 . In the afore-
noted case, for development of a Multi-Model
International Passenger and Cargo Hub Airport at
Nagpur, bids were invited but before the agreement
could be executed with the highest bidder, the bidding
process was annulled without any direction for fresh
tender process.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
12/26
17. It may be noted here that the GMR
Airports Ltd., which was declared as a selected bidder on
offering the highest revenue share, actually had
preferred a writ petition before the Nagpur High Court
when the concession agreement furnished by it was not
being responded to by the authorities.
18. When a notice was issued in the afore-
noted case to Mihan India Ltd., the entire bidding
process was annulled. The justification for annulment of
the entire tender process was the lack of clarity about
the criteria for selection of the bidder based on the
highest revenue share quoted; frequent changes in the
eligibility criteria with respect to airport experience; and
frequent changes in the bid document, leading to
deviation from the standard document for PPP projects.
The GMR Airports Ltd. questioned such clarifications
from it as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
19. In this context, the Supreme Court was
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
13/26
of the view that once the selection of the concessionaire
had been declared, then raising objections at the stage
of the execution of the concession agreement in the garb
of asking clarification with respect to certain formalities,
amounted to arbitrary exercise of powers by the
authorities, which is not permissible under the law. The
Supreme Court relied upon its own judgment in Union
of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation : (2001)
8 SCC 491, wherein while dealing with the rejection of
the bid of the respondent therein by the Railways in a
tender floated for procurement of certain items of spare
parts for use in GE governors, the Supreme Court had
held that the power to reject bids cannot be exercised
arbitrarily; merely because the Railways had the power
to do so. Any arbitrary exercise of power to reject bids
was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
20. The Supreme Court in this instance
[Dinesh Engg. (supra)], while taking note of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
14/26
principle that the Courts while judging the constitutional
validity of executive decisions, must grant certain
measures of “freedom of play” in the joints to the
executive, also held that a public authority, even in
contractual matters, should not have unfettered
discretion and in contracts having commercial elements.
Even though some extra discretion is to be conceded to
such authorities, they are bound to follow the norms
recognized by the Courts while dealing with public
property.
21. While deciding Mihan India Ltd. (supra),
the Supreme Court in paragraph 64 of the decision also
took note of the summation in City & Industrial
Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs.
Shishir Realty (P) Ltd. : (2002) 16 SCC 527 , which
reads as follows:
64. …………………………………………
“75. Before we state the
conclusions, this Court would like to reiterate
certain well established tenets of law
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
15/26pertaining to Government contracts. When
we speak of Government contracts,
constitutional factors are also in play.
Government bodies being public authorities
are expected to uphold fairness, equality and
rule of law even while dealing with
contractual matters. It is a settled principle
that right to equality under Article 14 abhors
arbitrariness. Public authorities have to
ensure that no bias, favouritism or
arbitrariness are shown during the bidding
process. A transparent bidding process is
much favoured by this Court to ensure that
constitutional requirements are satisfied.
76. Fairness and the good faith
standard ingrained in the contracts entered
into by public authorities mandates such
public authorities to conduct themselves in a
non-arbitrary manner during the performance
of their contractual obligations.
77. The constitutional guarantee
against arbitrariness as provided under Article
14, demands the State to act in a fair and
reasonable manner unless public interest
demands otherwise. However, the degree of
compromise of any private legitimate interest
must correspond proportionately to the public
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
16/26interest, so claimed.
78. At this juncture, it is
pertinent to remember that, by merely using
grounds of public interest or loss to the
treasury, the successor public authority
cannot undo the work undertaken by the
previous authority. Such a claim must be
proven using material facts, evidence and
figures. If it were otherwise, then there will
remain no sanctity in the words and
undertaking of the Government.
Businessmen will be hesitant to enter
Government contract or make any
investment in furtherance of the same. Such
a practice is counterproductive to the
economy and the business environment in
general.”
22. Applying the afore-noted principle, in that
case and finding the objections by the public authority in
support of cancellation of tender to be arbitrary, the
Supreme Court did not approve of such cancellation of
tender in its entirety.
23. Grounds of public interest or loss to the
treasury cannot undo the work already taken by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
17/26
authority.
24. In the present set of facts in these two
writ petitions, the situation is different.
25. The financial bid of M/s Sangam
Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of
2023), which was found to be L-1 for two locations,
namely, Gopalganj and Purnia, was erroneous. Without
following the proper procedure of multiplication and
division with respects to the rates, the rate quoted in
column – 9 of the financial bid, which only was relied
upon for declaration of the lowest/highest bidder, was
skewed. Thus, for the two locations, namely, Gopalganj
and Purnia, there was an alternative of declaring the L-2
for those two locations as L-1. This could but have led to
spate of litigation as many of the contenders/bidders
had participated and offered their bids for number of
locations.
26. Since it was a composite tender, any
wrong assessment of any one of the bidders to be the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
18/26
lowest or the highest for a particular location would have
had a cascading/waterfall effect on all the tenders. In
the circumstances and in all fitness of things, it appears
that the Bihar Pollution Control Board took a decision of
cancelling the entire tender process and re-tendering it.
27. To us, the decision does not appear to be
arbitrary or fanciful or imbued with any mala fides.
28. There is no gainsaying that over a period
of time, the Courts have recognized the crucial role of
the judiciary in preventing the abuse of power and
maintaining public confidence in the administrative
process through various doctrines and principles. The
interplay between judicial review and administrative
discretion is a dynamic process.
29. In Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. : (1990) 3 SCC 752 ,
the Supreme Court expressed doubts over the
correctness of the earlier position of law that actions of
the State in the private contractual field cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
19/26
questioned in the writ jurisdiction and held that such
restraint, even in some cases, is not advisable [also refer
to Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons Vs. Board of Trustees
of the Port of Bombay : (1989) 3 SCC 293; LIC &
Anr. Vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre &
Ors. : (1995) 5 SCC 482; Shrilekha Vidyarthi
(Kumari) & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : (1991) 1
SCC 212; Verigamto Naveen Vs. Govt. of A.P. &
Ors. : (2001) 8 SCC 344; and Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
V. Sadasivan & Ors : (2005) 6 SCC 657 ].
30. In ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. &
Ors. : (2004) 3 SCC 553, which judgment was the
turning point in the scope of judicial review of
contractual matters, the law has been summarized as
follows:
(a) In an appropriate case, a writ
petition as against a State or an instrumentality
of a State arising out of a contractual obligation
is maintainable; and
(b) Merely because some disputed
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
20/26questions of facts arise for consideration, same
cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ
petition in all cases as a matter of rule.
31. However, it was also cautioned in ABL
(supra) that the power to issue writs under Article 226 is
discretionary and plenary and, therefore, it should only
be exercised to set right the arbitrary actions of the
State of its instrumentality in matters relating to
contractual obligations.
32. In Noble Resources Ltd. Vs. State of
Orissa & Anr. : (2006) 10 SCC 236, a distinction was
made between matters where the contract is at the
threshold and at the stage of breach. At the stage of the
threshold of a contract, the Court’s scrutiny would be
more intrusive, but in the latter, the Court may not
ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial
review, unless it is found to be violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
33. At the stage of entering into a contract,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
21/26
the State acts purely in its executive capacity, and is
bound by the obligations of fairness. Mere reasonable or
legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation,
may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but
failure to consider and give due weight to it, may render
the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements
of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms
part of the principle of non-arbitrariness [refer to Joshi
Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India
&Ors. : (2015) 7 SCC 728 ].
34. There could be no dispute about the
exercise of writ jurisdiction in disputes at the stage prior
to the award of contract or after the contract comes into
existence or even after the termination or breach of he
contract, but with a caution that it should be exercised
only if the decision of the executive is questioned and
proved to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or
is found to be arbitrary or in viewed with mala fides.
35. To ascertain whether an act is arbitrary or
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
22/26
not, the Court has to refer to the facts and circumstances
of each case.
36. Is there any principle behind the decision
which has been questioned?
37. If yes, then whether such decision is wise
or unwise or wrong or the circumstances of the context
was capable of an alternative decision?
38. These would not be the questions which
would attract the gaze of the Court. There has to be a
total non-application of mind without due regard to the
rights of the parties in public interest for any decision to
be called arbitrary.
39. We are conscious of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs.
Chief Executive Officer & Ors : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1682, wherein the Supreme Court was testing whether
the action of the State or its instrumentality in cancelling
the tender, in its entirety, is arbitrary or unfair and is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
23/26
40. In that case, two of the grounds for
cancellation of the tender, viz., (a) there being a
technical fault in the tender and (b) change in policy,
were not found to be good reasons to justify the action
of cancellation of the entire tender. The facts of that
case revealed that the decision of the Government was
based on a mere possibility of fetching higher license fee
and the technical fault in the tender, as was suggested in
favour of the decision for cancellation, was found to be
non-existent.
41. With those facts, the Supreme Court in
Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra), while holding
that public tenders are a cornerstone of Government
procurement process, ensuring transparency,
competition and fairness in the allocation of public
resources, emanating from the doctrine of Public Trust,
found that the sanctity of public tender was violated.
Cancellation of a contract deprives a person of his
valuable rights and is a very drastic step. There could be
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
24/26
significant investments by the parties. The failure on the
part of the Courts, it was held, to zealously protect the
binding nature of a lawful and valid tender, would erode
public faith in contracts and tenders. The Supreme
Court went on to State that arbitrary terminations of
contract create uncertainty and unpredictability, thereby
discouraging public participation in the tendering
process.
42. In the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests & Ors. Vs. Suresh Mathew & Ors. [SLP (C)
No(s). 12353 – 12355 of 2021] , however, the re-
tender was validated on the ground that the Government
is the protector of financial resources of the State and it
has every right to cancel and call for fresh tender, it it is
in the nature of protecting financial interest of the State.
43. In the facts of the present case, the
situation presented is absolutely different. It was a
composite tender where the declaration with respect to
L-1 bidder for two locations was found to be faulty. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
25/26
would not have been fair to the other bidder in that case.
Since most of the bidders had participated and had
offered their request for various locations, the result for
all the locations would have been affected by declaration
of M/s Sangam Mediserve Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in
C.W.J.C. No. 12296 of 2023) as L-1 in a particular
location.
44. Precisely for this reason, which, we are of
the opinion is not arbitrary, the entire tender was
cancelled and, simultaneously, a fresh tender was issued
separately for each of the locations. The parties never
got an opportunity of any investment and it was only at
the threshold stage when the agreement would have
been entered into by the successful bidders, that this
decision was taken.
45. The reason for cancelling the tender, in
its entirety, does not appear to us to be arbitrary or mala
fide.
46. Whether it is wise or unwise or that a
Patna High Court CWJC No.10325 of 2023 dt.07-05-2025
26/26
better option could have been exercised by the
respondents/Board has not been addressed by us for the
reasons of our limitations of the jurisdiction.
47. Both the writ petitions are, thus,
dismissed.
48. Interlocutory application/s, if any, in both
the writ petitions, also stand disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 23.04.2025 Uploading Date 07.05.2025 Transmission Date N/A
[ad_2]
Source link