Unimeditrek Pvt Ltd v. Director General Of The Armed Forces Medical Services (Dgafms) & ORS

Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

$-28 & *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 3475/2016 + UNIMEDITREK PVT LTD Petitioner Through : Ms Sonal Kumar Singh and Ms Nikita Batra, Advocates.

versus DIRECTORT GENERAL OF THE ARMED FORCES MEDICAL SERVICES AND ORS Respondents Through : Ms Suparna Srivastava, Advocate for Union of India.

+ W.P.(C) 3488/2016 UNIMEDITREK PVT LTD Petitioner Through : Ms Sonal Kumar Singh and Ms Nikita Batra, Advocates.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE ARMED FORCES MEDICAL SERVICES (DGAFMS) & ORS Respondents Through : Ms Suparna Srivastava, Advocate for Union of India.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

ORDER

% 27.04.2016 CM No.l4889/2016rexemptionlin W.P.rCI 3475/2016 CM No.l4947/2016rexemptionl in W.P.tCI 3488/2016 Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.fCI 3475/2016 & CM No.l4888/2016tstavt W.P.(C) 3488/2016 & CM No.14946/2016rstavl These writ petitions pertain to medical equipments for which tenders

were invited for the Pathology Department. W.P.(C) No.3475/2016 pertains to Tissue Embedding Station and W.P.(C) No.3488/2016 relates to automatic slide stainer. These equipments are to be used in the Pathology Department. The tenders were invited sometime in April, 2015 and the petitioner admittedly came to know that its bids were rejected sometime in August, 2015. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that representations were moved before the concerned respondents and those have not yet been decided. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Director General of the Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS), respondent No.l herein, submitted that the successful bidders have already been selected in respect of both the equipments and Purchase Orders had been placed in November, 2015 and December, 2015.

Part supply of the equipments has also been made under both the Purchase Orders. In view of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay and, particularly, after part supply had been made by the successful bidders, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed.

l^DAR DURREZ AHMED, J uLaJ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J APRIL 27, 2016 'sn'