‘Unfair, contrary to norms’: Patna HC on ambulance tender to JD(U) MP’s kin

The contract, given to PDPL on May 31, was for running 2,125 ambulances as part of the Dial 102 service. Under this, ambulances ferry critical patients, pregnant women, and infants to the nearest government hospitals free of cost. The firm is owned by sons, daughters-in-law and close relatives of Chandravanshi. The MP had earlier said: “It is my relatives’ company and I have no personal say or stake in it.”

The court said SHSB is a “state organisation/institution and its action… failed to satisfy the test of reasonableness”.

A petition had been filed before the court by the consortium of BVG India Private Limited and Samman Foundation, who had lost out on the contract. The 68-page order was passed by the division bench of Justice P B Bajanthri and Justice Arun Kumar Jha.  Disqualifying PDPL’s technical and financial bid as well as the contract awarded to it, the court said: “… fairness in handling contractual matters is in the public interest. (From) perusal of records, it is evident that there is no fairness on the part of the second respondent (SHSB) in so far as rejection of the BVG bid application… Similarly, while handling bid application of PDPL, (SHSB) failed to take note of its eligibility…”

The court directed SHSB to “revisit from the stage of technical evaluation among the remaining bidders, including petitioner BVG India Limited and petitioner Ziqitza and others, and proceed to evaluate technical bid afresh and thereafter undertake further proceedings”.

The court based its verdict on three core issues – whether the petition filed by BVG Limited and two others is maintainable or not; whether rejection of bid application of BVG India Limited and two others is in order or not; and if PDPL, its bid application, is in consonance with eligibility criteria or not. Referring to previous judgements in similar cases, the court acknowledged that its interference “should be minimal” and “the courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity”.

The court order said PDPL was “not fulfilling” the condition of a turnover of Rs 100 crore per year for three consecutive years (2018-19 to 2020-21), nor did it have minimum three years’ experience to run advanced life support ambulances. “These defects have been ignored by SHSB… (its) decision to favour PDPL is evident in ignoring criteria and eligibility…,” the court observed.

Nirbhay Prashant, lawyer for petitioner BVG India and Samman Foundation, said: “While PDPL was the sole bidder, it had shown its turnover with its previous partner, Samman Foundation, which is now partner of BVG India Private Limited.” The court also addressed the issue of an administrative officer sharing BVG India’s email with PDPL, in gross violation of law of confidentiality.

PDPL lawyer Satyaveer Bharti did not respond to calls and messages by The Indian Express.