Bombay HC Issue Notice On Plea Challenging MoU Between State And GOI-Owned Sanitary Napkins Manufacturer For Setting Up Dialysis Centres

A Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice M.M Sathaye were hearing a petition challenging a Notice issued by HLL Life Care, under which only the empanelled firms with HLL were eligible to participate in a tender for providing haemodialysis services.

The petitioner, an Association of Dialysis Services Providers challenged the notice dated 07 May 2024 floated by HLL (respondent no. 3), inviting 'Request for Quote' (RFQ) for the selection of a 'strategic partner' to provide Haemodialysis services in Maharashtra. As per the notice, only the empanelled firms with the respondent no. 3 are eligible to participate in a closed tender.

The CJ orally remarked, “It is a UOI enterprise, then how are you confining the tender with entities which are registered with you?”

HLL Life Care Ltd., formerly Hindustan Latex Limited, started as a manufacturer of condoms and sanitary napkins. The petition states that a MOU was entered between the Maharashtra government (respondent no. 2) and HLL for setting up of dialysis centres at 367 government health facilities and providing free dialysis services under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).

It is stated that the MOU was done on a nomination basis and that there was no calling of tenders before the nomination for HLL.

The petition states that the Maharashtra Government intends to execute the project despite HLL not having any relevant industry experience or expertise. It is stated that the 'selection of essentially a condom and sanitary napkin manufacturing company' to execute the work of the State government under the NRHM raises questions regarding the rationale of such selection.

The petitioner contends that the award of MOU to HLL on a nomination basis violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner contends that their right to participate in a tender is being unfairly and arbitrarily curtailed by the respondents. It also contends that a closed tender for providing essential health services of haemodialysis to the public at large is restrictive, unfair and arbitrary.

Further, the petitioner argues the selection criteria even for empanelled strategic partners have not been disclosed by respondent no.3, which raises the question of fairness of the entire process.

The petitioner thus prays to declare the MOU between Maharashtra Government and HLL as illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio. It also prays to quash the notice issued by respondent no. 3 as illegal.