Full Judgment
2. The State of Bihar, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Secretariat , Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Secretariat, Patna.
4. National Rural State Health Mission, Represented by the Mission Director.
5. The State Health Society, Bihar Pariwar Kalyan Bhawan, Sheikhpura, Patna, Department of Health, Government of Bihar.
6. Secretary, Health - Cum - Executive Director, Bihar, Pariwar Kalyan Bhawan, Sheikhpura, Patna Department of Health, Government of Bihar.
7. Dr. Jain Videos on Wheels Ltd., Jain Studios Campus, Scindia Villa, Sarojini Nagar, Ring Road, New Delhi 110023.
8. Indian Red Cross Society, 1 Red Cross Road, New Delhi 110001.
9. Chairman St. John Ambulance Tamil Nadu State, M/S. St. John Ambulance India, No. 1, Mayor V. R. Ramananathan Road (East), Chetpet, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600031. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate, A.A.G. II. Mr. Biresh Kumar Sinha, A. C. to A.A.G.-II. =====================================================”
11. 01-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The present writ petition has been filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: i.) to ensure a fair, transparent and equitable 2 selection in the matter of allocation of tender/contract for operation of Basic Life Support Ambulance Service in the State of Bihar, wherein the funds of the National Rural Health Mission is to be utilized in the said operation which involves providing of Emergency Medical Service to the citizens of the State of Bihar. ii.) To supervise the working of Emergency Medical Services within the Stat eof Bihar as per the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Honble Apex Court in Ambulance Access Foundation India & Another Vs. the Union of India & ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 518 of 2008 iii.) To cancel the tender which has been granted in favour of Dr. Jain Videos on wheels contrary to the terms and clause of the request for proposal and also without taking into consideration that Dr. Jain Videos does neither possess the expertise nor the experience or the competence for running Emergency Medical Service and to ensure the awarding of fresh tender in accordance and in consonance with the Request for proposal, as Right to Life of the citizens is involved in the entire process; 3 iv.) To conduct and enquiry through and appropriate investigating agency into the irregularities committed in awarding of the tender for operation of Basic Life Support Ambulance Service in the State of Bihar, which has been awarded in utter disrespect to the concept of fairness, non-arbitratiness and reasonableness for award of contracts and without conducting the same in a transparent manner which is prejudicial to the public interest and which wll have a direct and lasting impact on the citizens of the State of Bihar; v.) To ensure that no deviation from the Request for Proposal is done in the process of allocation of tenders and further to ensure that the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Requst for Proposals are strictly adhered to, in such process of tender allocation as the same involves public exchequer and public interest; vi.) To cancel the entire tender process and the contract and to direct for a fresh tender within a reasonable time frame in a fair, reasonable and transparent manner, in case no eligible bidder having adequate experience is found, and vii.) Any such relief as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 It has been stated at paragraph.28 of the writ petition that fraud has been played by Dr. Jain Video on Wheels by entering into an MoU with one St. Johns Ambulance for providing the emergency Ambulance services. It appears that Dr. Jain Video on Wheels put up a tender in response to an item published under the caption of Expression of Interest which was published in newspapers for operationalisation of Basic Life Support ambulance services in all the districts of Bihar on 26.08.2011 and 27.08.2011 respectively as contained in Annexure-1 along with the Terms and Conditions for the said Expression of Interest which is annexed as Annexure-2. The petitioner has also chosen to file copies of minutes of opening of financial bid for operationalisation of Basic Life Support ambulance services in all districts of Bihar wherein the Authorities have taken a decision to award the tender to the L1 Agency i.e. Dr. Jain Video on Wheels Ltd.( respondent no.7). The main ground urged before us by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that Dr. Jain Video on Wheels Ltd. have played fraud as they have no experience of their own of running the Basic Life Support ambulance services and they have also played fraud by entering into an MoU with one St. John Ambulance, Chennai, Tamilnadu who is respondent no.9 herein. However, as the Authority has taken a decision vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition to award the tender to respondent no.7, i.e. Dr. Jain Video on Wheels hence, the present writ petition has been filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation questioning awarding of tender to Respondent No.7. It is contended by learned counsel for the 5 petitioner that the petitioners Society on earlier occasion had approached the Apex Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.518 of 2008 as contained in Annexure-7 questioning awarding of contract to Respondent No.14 therein as it was discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since no open tender was invited before awarding the contract to Respondent No.14. We had also an occasion to go through the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 518 of 2008. It was a case where the petitioners have chosen to question awarding of contract to responder no. 14 on the ground that no open tender was invited before awarding the contract to respondent no.14. The Apex Court has held at paragraph no.6 of the said order as quoted hereinbelow:- we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate that the various issues raised in this matter would be examined by the respective State Governments, who will be in a better position to examine and implement them depending upon the specific needs of those states like disease burden, health infrastructure, road connectivity etc. Further, petitioners have also contended that the awarding of contract to Respondent No.14 was discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since no open tender was invited before awarding the contract to Respondent no.14. It has also been observed by the Apex Court at paragraph no.7 of the said order that the aggrieved persons must bring into the notice of the respective states in case of any irregularities in the tendering process. It has further been observed 6 by the Apex Court that it is open to the petitioners and other aggrieved persons to approach the respective High Courts, if found necessary, so that those Courts would be in a better position to effectively supervise, taking into consideration, the local conditions and requirements. So far as the present case is concerned, it has to be observed that the State of Bihar has invited open tender and it was awarded to respondent no.7. It has to be further observed that the petitioner has chosen to rely upon Annexure-6 which is legal opinion with regard to the State of Tamilnadu. It has also to be further observed that there is no material placed before this Court that the petitioner has approached the State Authority in case he feels that there are any irregularities in awarding the tender to respondent no.7 as has been observed by the Apex Court. In absence of any such material, we are of the opinion that as the petitioner has not followed the directions of the Apex Court and has chosen to approach this Court directly, this writ petition needs no interference for the present. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.) Ashwini/-