CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a manufacturing company challenging the tender conditions floated by the Odisha State Medical Corporation Limited (OSMCL) for implementation of NAT (Nucleic Acid Testing) facilities across 45 blood centres in the state under public-private-partnership (PPP) mode.
The petitioner contended that the tender clause mandating USFDA or European CE certification was discriminatory and effectively barred indigenous manufacturers from participating, thereby contradicting the government’s ‘Make in India’ initiative.
Arguing that the clause was restrictive and unfair, the petitioner had initially approached the competent authority seeking amendment of the condition. Responding to the representation, the OSMCL revised the tender clause to also include BIS-certified products, allowing Indian manufacturers to participate.
However, the petitioner again raised objections, stating that no BIS certification currently exists for the product in question, thereby causing further prejudice to domestic bidders. Following additional representations, the tendering authority clarified that any one of the certifications - USFDA, European CE, or BIS - would be considered valid, and the bid would not be rejected solely for the lack of a specific certification. The deadline for bid submission was also extended to accommodate these changes.
However, on August 11, the division bench of Chief Justice and Justice M S Raman declined to interfere, emphasising that the matter involves technical and public health considerations. The tender pertains to equipment used for detecting life-threatening diseases like HIV, HBV, and HCV in blood plasma, and ensuring precision and accuracy is of paramount importance, the bench noted in the order uploaded on Wednesday.
Stressing judicial restraint in matters involving technical expertise, especially in the healthcare sector, the bench stated that its role is limited to examining whether the actions of the authorities align with constitutional and statutory provisions, and do not result in discrimination.
Since no decision had yet been taken on bid acceptance or rejection, and the deadline for submission was still open, the court observed that the petition was based merely on presumption and apprehension.