The tender dated 20.01.2016 was quashed, letter dated 22.06.2016 was also quashed and the companytract tender awarded in favour of Bionet was set aside.
M s. Nirlac Chemicals hereinafter referred to as Nirlac is a registered partnership firm, which is an Indian partner of M s. Universal Exim FZE, an enterprise organised and existing under the laws of United Arab Emirates UAE .
The first part was the techno commercial bid and the second part was price bid.
However, they took part in the tender.
M s. Haffkine issued a tender numberice on 20.01.2016, for supply of bulk drugs including Monovalent Bulk of Poliomyelitis Type 1 Oral Sabin Strain and Monovalent Bulk of Poliomyelitis Type 3 Oral Sabin Strain.
However, later in the evening, they were shown a companyparative chart of analysis wherein it was mentioned that the bid of Nirlac had number been found to be technically qualified.
On 25.01.2016, Nirlac sent a letter to Haffkine protesting against the issuance of tender.
Aggrieved by this judgment, Haffkine and Bionet have filed petitions challenging the setting aside of the tender issued by Haffkine as also setting aside of the companytract entered into by Haffkine in favour of Bionet.
It was also companyplained that the tender companyditions had been tailor made to suit the requirements of Bionet.
The main ground raised was that the Central Vigilance Commission CVC for short guidelines had been violated in as much as the tender of Bionet was number opened in the presence of the representatives of Nirlac who were present.
The bids were to be submitted in two parts.
Nirlac has also filed an appeal in which they have claimed that since they were found eligible, the tender should have been awarded to Nirlac instead of directing that a fresh tender be floated.
This firm had been supplying the bulk drugs to Haffkine as a distributer of M s. P.T. Biofarma, Indonesia for the last 15 years.
Leave granted.
It number only held that Haffkine had violated the CVC guidelines but also came to the companyclusion that Nirlac companyplied with all the tender companyditions and, therefore, the tender of Nirlac had been wrongly rejected.
The date of opening of tender was changed to 12.02.2016.
All the appeals are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
M s. Haffkine Bio Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as Haffkine is a Government of Maharashtra undertaking.
These drugs are companybined and formulated along with other materials by Haffkine and oral polio vaccine is prepared.
According to Nirlac, they were informed about the rejection of their bid only on 22.06.2016 and thereafter they filed writ petition in the High Court of Bombay challenging the rejection of their bid and the award of the tender in favour of Bionet.
The High Court allowed the writ petition.
Nirlac immediately sent objections on the same day and one of the main grounds taken was that the bid of Bionet had number been opened in their presence.
Deepak Gupta, J. Delay companydoned in Special Leave Petition C CC No s .9316 of 2017.
One of the main businesses of Haffkine is the manufacture of polio vaccines.
It is engaged in the business of manufacture of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals and biological products.
Nirlac also sent two other representations to the Minister of Food, Civil Supplies, Consumer Protection, Food and Drug Administration, Government of Maharashtra.
On 12.02.2016, the representatives of Haffkine were present in the office of Haffkine and according to Nirlac though the bid of Universal Exim FZE represented by Nirlac was opened, the meeting was adjourned after lunch without opening the tender of M s. Bionet Asia Co. Ltd., Thailand for short Bionet .
However, since the procurement of the bulk drug was necessary in public interest, the High Court permitted Haffkine to purchase the bulk drug from Bionet till a fresh tender was finalised.
The State Government, through the Department of Public Health, was directed to float a fresh tender within a period of eight weeks.
The techno commercial bid was to be opened on 10.02.2016 at 4.30 p.m. and the date for opening of the price bid was to be fixed thereafter.
