(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) We have heard Mr. S. N. Shelat, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Atit D. Thakore for the petitioner, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.S. Chari for respondent No.1, Mr. N.J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. Bhash Mankad holding brief of Mr. Hriday Buch appearing for respondent No.3.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the pre-qualification criteria made in the tender.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the product should be certified by either of the aforesaid countries or the authorities as under :-
"Products should be certified by DCGI, USFDA and CE for all countries of Europe & U.K."
4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the product should be certified by either of the aforesaid countries or the authorities. It appears that in the tender notice, all the certificates are required by the Government. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's products are not certified by USFDA, the tender is not issued to the present petitioner In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 3.3.2009 passed in WP (C) No. 8859 of 2008 in the case of VASCULAR CONCEPTS LIMITED vs. Union Of India & Ors.
5. We have gone through the assertions made in the writ petition. This writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:-
"Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition.
Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to modify terms of tender and thereby deleting pre-qualification condition of having all the three certificates as enumerated in tender.
Your Lordships may be pleased to direct respondent No.1 to permit petitioner Company to participate in tender proceedings as the petitioner has DCGI and CE approval.
Pending admission and final hearing, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay proceedings pursuant to tender issued by respondent No.1."
6. No where in the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner has purchased the tender or has filed the tender. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the tender was purchased by one Pavitra Health Care vide Receipt dated 12.10.2011. Pavitra Health Care is not the petitioner before us. Admittedly, the petitioner has not purchased the tender within the time which expired on 7.11.2011 and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the pre-qualification criteria provided in the tender.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, they have stated that Pavitra Health Care was their Distributor and he was authorized by the petitioner to purchase the tender form. The tender notice provided that the tenderer should purchase the tender form. Therefore, Pavitra Health Care could not have purchased the tender form for submitting the tender by the petitioner. The tender form ought to have been purchased in the petitioner's name.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in this petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Interim relief is discharged.
Sd/-
[V.
M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/-
[A.
J. DESAI, J.] Savariya Top