The Patna High Court has delivered a significant judgment on the State’s 102 ambulance services tender. A Division Bench examined two writ petitions—one by a consortium whose technical bid had been rejected, and another by a competing bidder challenging the award to the lowest bidder (L1). The Court set aside the consortium’s disqualification, quashed the selection and work order issued in favour of the L1 bidder, and directed the State Health Society, Bihar (SHSB) to restart the process from the technical evaluation stage among the remaining bidders, including the petitioners. The Court gave two months for this exercise and allowed the existing interim arrangement to continue in the meantime.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This case arises from a large, public-facing tender for the operationalization and management of a State-wide fleet of ambulances and mortuary vans under a Public Private Partnership (PPP) model. The tender required bidders to satisfy strict eligibility conditions, including (i) minimum average annual turnover from ambulance services and (ii) demonstrated experience operating a specified number of Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulances supported by a call centre.
Two principal disputes reached the Court:
• First, a consortium’s bid (the “petitioner” in one writ) was rejected at the technical stage. The Technical Committee said the petitioner had failed to submit “notes” to its audited balance sheets—treating those notes as “mandatory documents” under the RFP’s eligibility clause.
• Second, another bidder (the “petitioner” in the companion writ) challenged SHSB’s decision to technically qualify a rival bidder (the later L1 awardee) despite alleged non-compliance with the turnover and experience criteria, and also challenged the Project Appraisal Committee’s (PAC) decision declaring that rival entity as L1 and awarding the contract.
On the first issue, the Bench carefully read Clause 2.2 of the eligibility criteria, which listed the “mandatory documents” to be furnished (audited balance sheet, profit and loss/income-expenditure statement as applicable, and a chartered accountant’s turnover certificate). The Court found that Clause 2.2 did not direct bidders to file the internal “notes” appended to audited financials. Because the tender did not expressly require those notes, disqualifying the petitioner’s technical bid for not furnishing them was held to be contrary to the RFP and therefore unsustainable. The order expressly “set aside” the consortium’s disqualification.
On the second issue, the Court scrutinized the record relating to the L1 bidder’s qualification. The RFP demanded, among other things, (a) a minimum average annual turnover of ₹100 crores from ambulance services for FY 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 (for a sole bidder), and (b) experience of operating and managing a minimum fleet of ambulances (including a minimum number of ALS ambulances) supported by a call centre of the prescribed capacity for the specified years. After evaluating the documents cited for turnover and experience, the Bench held that the L1 bidder failed to meet the mandatory criteria under Clauses 2.2 and 2.3. The Court noted discrepancies and mismatches in figures and supporting material and clarified that the RFP’s experience requirement was year-specific (i.e., for each of the three financial years), not a generic “overall three years” computation. On these findings, the Court set aside the L1 bidder’s technical qualification, financial bid status, L1 declaration, and the consequent work order.
Recognising that courts ordinarily exercise restraint in contractual/tender matters, the Bench nevertheless emphasised that judicial review is available to correct arbitrariness, irrationality, or violation of Article 14 standards in State action. It found SHSB’s approach “unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14,” both in rejecting the consortium for a non-mandatory technicality and in overlooking the L1 bidder’s non-compliance with core eligibility conditions. The Court therefore directed SHSB to revisit the process “from the stage of technical evaluation among the remaining bidders, including petitioner BVG India Limited and petitioner Ziqitza and others,” complete the process within two months of receiving the order, and continue the existing interim arrangement until then. Finally, it allowed the consortium’s writ petition in full and allowed the other petitioner’s writ petition in part—granting relief only to the extent of invalidating the rival bidder’s selection, but not declaring the petitioner as L1 by judicial fiat.
In short: the Court restored a level playing field and insisted on strict adherence to the tender’s express terms. It refused to read in additional requirements against one bidder and refused to ignore mandatory eligibility criteria for another.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
• Reinforces fairness and transparency in public procurement: Government instrumentalities cannot invent extra-document requirements to reject one bidder and simultaneously dilute or overlook core eligibility for another. The judgment underlines that even in technical tenders, Article 14 principles apply to the decision-making process.
• Clear message on “what the RFP says is what the bidder must meet”: Authorities must evaluate strictly against the RFP’s written conditions. If a document (like “notes” to financials) isn’t listed as mandatory, a bid can’t be rejected for not providing it; conversely, if turnover/experience are expressly mandated, they must be established for each specified year.
• Practical continuity for essential services: The Court balanced public interest by letting the interim arrangement continue while ordering a time-bound re-evaluation. Ambulance services, being critical, won’t be disrupted during the corrective process.
• Compliance roadmap for authorities: SHSB and similar agencies now have a judicially approved path—restart from the technical evaluation stage among remaining bidders, test compliance strictly as per the RFP, and proceed to financial opening and award only thereafter.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
• Whether the consortium’s technical disqualification for not filing “notes” to audited balance sheets was valid
— Decision: No. The RFP did not mandate filing “notes.” Disqualifying a bidder for a non-mandatory item is contrary to the tender and arbitrary. Disqualification set aside.
• Whether SHSB correctly declared the rival bidder technically qualified and issued the work order (L1) despite eligibility concerns
— Decision: No. The rival bidder failed the tender’s year-specific turnover and experience criteria under Clauses 2.2 and 2.3. Its technical qualification, financial bid position, L1 declaration, and work order were set aside.
• Appropriate remedial direction in a public-services tender where arbitrariness is established
— Decision: Revisit from the technical evaluation stage among remaining bidders, including both petitioners; complete within two months; maintain interim arrangement until completion. The consortium’s writ allowed; the other petitioner’s writ allowed in part (reliefs against the rival bidder only).
Judgments Referred by Parties
• Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273 (petitioner’s reliance on strictness of essential vs. non-essential tender conditions).
• B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548 (summary of principles on essential conditions, relaxation, and judicial review).
• Dutta Associates (P) Ltd. v. Indo Mercantiles (P) Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 53 (fair, transparent tender procedures).
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
• Reliance Energy Ltd. v. MSRDC, (2007) 8 SCC 1 (judicial review of tender processes; arbitrariness and decision-making norms under Article 14).
• N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, (2022) 6 SCC 127 (courts’ restraint in tender matters; distinguished on facts).
• Municipal Corporation, Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462 (experience certification and evaluation; discussed).
• National High Speed Rail Corp. Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 401 (tender judicial review principles; discussed/not assisting on facts).
• New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 (consortium/past experience; discussed/not assisting on facts).
• Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corp. v. Anoj Kumar Agarwala, (2020) 17 SCC 577 (L1/L2 consequences; discussed).
Case Title
BVG India Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.; with M/s Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Patna High Court, Division Bench).
Case Number
CWJC No. 16899 of 2022 (with) CWJC No. 8553 of 2023.
Coram and Names of Judges — Always prefix with Hon’ble
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha.
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
• For the petitioners (CWJC 16899/2022): Mr. S. D. Sanjay, Sr. Adv. with assisting counsel.
• For respondent no. 4: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv. with assisting counsel.
• For respondents 1, 2 & 3 (SHSB/State authorities): Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. with assisting counsel.
• For the State: Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP-25 with assisting counsel.
• For the petitioner (CWJC 8553/2023): Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv.
(As listed in the appearance caption of the judgment.)
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTY4OTkjMjAyMiMxI04=-XAIR5b0Pl2M=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
