M/S Panacea Medical Technologies … vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 7 November, 2008

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                          CHANDIGARH.


                                         C.W.P. No.10990 of 2008
                                        Date of decision: 7.11.2008

M/s Panacea Medical Technologies Private Limited.
                                                      -----Petitioner
                                Vs.
The State of Punjab & Others.
                                                  -----Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
            HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL

Present:-   Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate &
            Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate
            for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
                  -----
ORDER:

1. This petition seeks quashing of tender notice dated

26.3.2008 (Annexure P-16).

2. Case of the petitioner is that it is manufacturing

Bhabhtron-II, an isocentric external beam radiation therapy machine

design, for treatment of cancer patients and is the only company for

manufacturing the said machines in India. Only other manufacturer

is M/s M.D.S. Noidan, Canada.

C.W.P. No.10990 of 2008

2

3. Vide tender notice (Annexure P-16) dated 26.3.2008,

Controller of Stores, Punjab invited sealed tenders for supply of

‘Imported’ Teletherapy Cobalt 60 Machine.

4. The petitioner represented that since the machine in

question was also being manufactured by the petitioner, which was

equally good or even better, instead of requiring only ‘imported’

machines to be supplied, the Department should consider, on

merits, the case of the petitioner also. Having received no reply, this

petition was filed.

5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.6, it has

been stated that the decision about the requirement of machines in

question was taken after due consideration of representation of the

petitioner by various experts. The offer of the petitioner was

examined by a technical committee but the said offer did not meet

the technical requirement and specifications.

6. Respondents No.3 to 5 who are the technical experts

have also filed a reply reiterating the stand of respondent No.6.

Similar is the stand taken on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 i.e.

State of Punjab and Director, Medical Research and Education.

7. On 23.6.2008, following order was passed:-

“Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the only manufacturer in India of
Teletherapy Cobalt 60 machine which is used for the
treatment of cancer. It is also submitted, though at the
bar, that the petitioner has already installed the
aforesaid machine in ten Premier medical institutions all
over the India. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in
C.W.P. No.10990 of 2008

3

the tender notice, which is alleged to have been issued
on 30th May, 2008, came to their notice on 19th June,
2008 and is opening on 23.06.2008, the respondents
have called for the tender for the imported Teletheraphy
Cobalt 60 machine as a result of which they being the
only manufacturer of the aforesaid machine in India
have been ousted. It is also brought to the notice of this
Court that the tender has already been opened today,
therefore, at this stage the petitioner cannot participate
in the bid.

                  Notice   of    motion   to        the   respondents   for
            04.07.2008.
                  Dasti only.

In the meantime, process of the tender may carry
on but it may not be finalized till the next date of
hearing.”

8. The issue being highly technical, this Court cannot

substitute its opinion for the opinion of the experts or decision taken

by the competent authority, but at the same time, if product of the

petitioner is considered to be of equal good quality at much cheaper

rate, it may be in public interest to consider the view point of the

petitioner, which has been reiterated in the form of replication.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objections

to consider the view point of the petitioner on merits and it has been

stated that before final decision is taken in the matter, the petitioner

will be given a hearing.

10. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the

Committee, to be nominated by respondent No.2, on 15.12.2008.
C.W.P. No.10990 of 2008

4

11. After considering the view point of the petitioner,

respondents will be at liberty to take a final decision.

12. The writ petition is disposed of.

                                          ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
                                                   JUDGE


November 07, 2008                                 ( L. N. MITTAL )
ashwani                                                 JUDGE