AIMS v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 17360 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** AIMS A PROPRIETOR CONCERN, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BUILDING NO.36 (OLD NO.207), 'SAMKIT', 3RD FLOOR, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 36TH CROSS, JAYA NAGAR, 4TH T BLOCK EAST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN - 560041 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. LOKESH RAJNIKANT SHAH. BY ADVS. BIJU BALAKRISHNAN V.S.RAKHEE K.J.GISHA AJMAL P. PARVATHY S.R. ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001. 2 NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, NHM OFFICE, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE MISSION DIRECTOR 3 STATE NODEL OFFICER-CHILD HEALTH, NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, NHM OFFICE, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035 4 KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED, THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695014 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 5 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED, THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695014 6 THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE , TECHNICAL COMMITTEE (TEST KIT FOR NEW BORN SCREENING PROGRAMME (IMMUNO FLUROSCENCE METHOD)), KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -2- LIMITED, THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695014,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHERPERSON. 7 THE DIRECTOR, STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY, RED CROSS ROAD, RISHIMANGALAM PATTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695024. 8 M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD, NO.15, IV STREET, ABHIRAMAPURAM, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600018. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW ARUN THOMAS KARTHIKA MARIA ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL ABI BENNY AREECKAL MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR.GP.RENJITH GEORGE.SC M.AJAY **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY READ ON 02.02.2023, THE COURT ON 23.05.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -3- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2023 The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the dealership of medical equipment, medicines and allied products. The 4[th] respondent is a fully owned Government Company set up for the purpose of procuring, at the best possible rates, quality drugs, supplies, devices, equipments and consumables for the health care institutions run by or under the State Government. As per notification dated 30.03.2017, the 4[th] respondent invited tenders for three lakhs test kits and equipment for new born screening programme (Immuno Fluoresence Method). The tender required the supplier to install machines in four different laboratories across the State without any cost and to quote the rate for reagents/test kits, valid for a period of two years. The petitioner is the dealer for M/s.Perkin Elmer ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -4- (India) Pvt. Ltd and the 8[th] respondent, the dealer for M/s.Lab Systems, which are the only two manufacturers of test kits and equipment for which the tender was invited. As the tender conditions provided for participation of manufacturers or their authorised dealers having a place of business in any of the States in India, the petitioner and the 8[th] respondent participated in the tender notified by the 4[th] respondent. The tender consisted of three stages; (i) technical evaluation (ii) demonstration of technical specification and performance (iii) price bid evaluation. In the tender, the 8th respondent was declared the lowest bidder and issued with a supply order for two years. Before expiry of the two year period, the next tender was invited as per notification dated 10.07.2019. This time also, the petitioner and the 8[th] respondent responded and the 6[th] respondent Technical Committee, after evaluation of the ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -5- tender, rejected the 8[th] respondent’s bid. The tender was thereupon cancelled for the reason that only one bidder, the petitioner, remained in the fray. After cancellation, fresh tender notification was issued 24.09.2020. Again, the petitioner and the 8[th] respondent participated and the 8[th] respondent's bid was rejected by the Technical Committee. Consequently, the tender was cancelled. 2. The next tender, notified on 20.04.2021, contained revised technical specifications for supply of test kits of fully automated Immuno Analyzer. The incorporation of additional technical specifications (lockout) was objected by the 8[th] respondent and certain modifications suggested. The Technical Committee considered and rejected most of the suggestions. Aggrieved, the 8[th] respondent filed W.P.(C) No.11455 of 2021 and this Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, required the Managing Director of the 4[th] respondent to take a ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -6- decision on the representation submitted by the 8[th] respondent, after hearing M/s.Perkin Elmer (India) Pvt. Ltd and the Technical Committee. Accordingly the representation was considered and a decision taken not to change the revised specifications. Thereupon, the 8[th] respondent filed W.P.(C) No.15685 of 2021 and this Court issued an interim order, permitting the 8[th] respondent to participate in the tender and prohibiting the issuance of work order for supply of materials, without obtaining further orders. Based on the order, the 8[th] respondent was permitted to participate in the tender. Thereafter, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 27.08.2021, it was reported that the 8[th] respondent was the lowest bidder and there was a huge difference of Rs.1,54,65,868.06 between the bids of the petitioner and the 8[th] respondent. In view of the difference in price, this Court directed the State Mission Director ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -7- (SMD) of the National Health Mission to decide whether the additional (lockout) specifications mentioned in the tender notification should be given effect. It was made clear that the decision taken by the SMD will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 filed a statement in the writ petition, along with a copy of the consequential order passed by the SMD, finding that the revised specifications are not bringing in any new technology for improving the test results or accuracy and will only result in a single eligible bidder participating. It was hence suggested to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders with the original specifications. In the light of the statement and order, this Court directed expeditious re-tender of the running contract for supply of test kits for newborn screening programme. In compliance with the direction, re-tender notification, without the ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -8- revised specifications, was issued by the 4[th] respondent on 03.03.2022. 3. The petitioner alleges that the revised specifications were deleted with the sole intention of awarding the contract to the 8[th] respondent, as the 8[th] respondent's equipment and kits would not meet the revised specifications. Pointing out the illegality and prejudice caused, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P13 representation before the 5[th] respondent and Ext.P14 before the 1[st] respondent. As the aforementioned respondents failed to act upon the representation, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs; _“I. Call for all records relating to Ext.P12 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or order._ _II. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to make the specifications mentioned as Appendix I in Ext. P4 in_ W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -9- _all future tenders for Running Contract for the Supply of Test Kit for New Born Screening Programme (Immuno Flurosence Method)._ _III. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to Re-Tender the Running Contract for Supply of Test Kit for New Born Screening Programme (Immuno Flurosence Method), by including technical specifications mentioned as Appendix I in Ext. P4, as expeditiously as possible, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court._ _IV. Issue such other Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, including awarding to the cost of the proceedings to the petitioner.”_ 4. Adv.Biju Balakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, all throughout, the attempt was to award the contract to the 8[th] respondent. The earlier two tenders, in which the 8[th] respondent's bid was rejected by the Technical Committee, were cancelled for that W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -10- reason. The original tender was awarded for only two years and cancellation of subsequent tenders had benefited the 8[th] respondent, as the 8[th] respondent was permitted to continue supply of the test kits and reagent till a new contract is awarded. The decision to incorporate additional technical specifications for supply of test kits and reagents for fully automated immunoanalyzer was taken since the equipment of the 8[th] respondent had become obsolete with passage of time. As a matter of fact, numerous complaints were received about the performance of the equipment and the accuracy of the results. After issuance of tender notification dated 20.04.2021 containing the additional specifications, a prebid meeting was held by the Technical Committee. The prospective tenderers, namely the petitioner and the 8[th] respondent, suggested amendments to some of the specifications. After scrutinising the specifications and the changes suggested, the W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -11- Technical Committee rejected six out of the eight amendments. The reason for such rejection is elaborated in Ext.P8 minutes of the Technical Committee. Further, in terms of the direction in W.P(c) No.11455 of 2021, the Managing Director of KMSCL (5[th] respondent) heard the 8th respondent, the manufacturers and the Technical Committee. After detailed consideration it was decided not to change the additional specifications. The incorporation of additional specifications having thus been consistently upheld, the SMD of the National Health Mission could not have directed the 4[th] respondent to invite fresh tenders with the original specifications, on the premise that the revised specifications are not bringing in any new technology and there is huge price difference in the offers submitted by the bidders. 5. The decision in _**Vice Chairman & Managing**_ W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -12- _**Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and another v. Shishir Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Others [(2021 KHC**_ _**6770)]**_ , is relied on to contend that the mere possibility of more money in the public coffers does not, in itself, sub-serve public interest. Finally, it is contended that the earlier judgments of this Court does not fetter the power to review the decision to delete the additional specifications, since the 8[th] respondent filed those writ petitions without arraying the petitioner as a party. 6. Adv.M.Ajay, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6, stoutly refuted the allegation that the revised conditions were deleted for the purpose of awarding the contract to the 8[th] respondent. The following arguments were put forth in support of the decision to delete the revised specifications; ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 ## -13- In the first tender, invited as per notice dated 30.03.2017, the Technical Committee found the 8[th] respondent’s product to be technically qualified and being the L1 bidder, supply orders were issued to the 8[th] respondent. In the next bid, conducted after two years with the same tender specification, the Technical Committee rejected the 8[th] respondent's bid. As ouster of the 8[th] respondent resulted in only one qualified bidder remaining, the tender was cancelled in accordance with the norms adopted by the KSCML. The next tender was delayed due to Covid pandemic and was notified on 24.09.2020. This time also, the 8[th] respondent's bid was rejected based on the Technical Committee's recommendation. The 8[th] respondent represented before the 5[th] respondent against the rejection of its bid, in spite of there being no change in the tender conditions. Based on the representation, the 5[th] respondent requested the technical committee to re-evaluate -14- ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 the product offered by the petitioner and the 8th respondent. After re-evaluation, the technical committee reiterated its stand that the offer of the 8[th] respondent did not match the technical specifications required for fully automated equipment, especially in the case of DBS Puncher and reagent handling. As the 8[th] respondent's offer had been selected by the technical committee in the first tender and rejected in the subsequent tenders, without there being any change in the technical specifications, the 5[th] respondent decided to re-tender the contract for the supply of test kits with more generic specifications, without compromising on quality and test results. Consequently, the tender notified on 12.03.2021 was cancelled and the technical committee instructed to submit a revised technical specification. Accordingly, the technical specifications were finalised on 13.03.2021 and tenders invited as per W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -15- notification dated 20.04.2021. After publishing the notification, a pre-bid meeting was conducted and the 8[th] respondent suggested various amendments to the revised technical specifications. The technical committee accepted 6 out of the 8 suggestions and published the amended specifications on 17.05.2021. Dissatisfied with the rejection of its other suggestions, the 8[th] respondent filed W.P.(C) No.11455 of 2021. That writ petition was disposed of directing the 5[th] respondent to take a decision after hearing both prospective bidders and extend the last date of submission of bids till the hearing is completed. In accordance with the direction, the 8[th] respondent and the representative of M/s.Perkin Elmer (India) Pvt. Ltd were heard and the technical committee's suggestions sought. As the report of the Committee was against change of specification, Ext.P7 letter was sent to the 8[th] respondent and ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -16- the last date of submission of tender was extended up to 07.08.2021. At that stage, the 8[th] respondent filed W.P.(C) No.15685 of 2021, challenging the revised technical specification. By order dated 05.08.2021, this Court permitted the 8th respondent to participate in the tender subject to further orders. Thereafter, interim order dated 27.08.2021 was issued, directing the State Mission Director (SMD) of the National Health Mission, which is in charge of the Child Health Project under which the testing process was implemented, to hear the contesting parties as well as the 4[th] and 7[th] respondents and to decide whether the additional specifications should be retained. After hearing the parties and based on cost benefit analysis of the rival bids, the State Mission Director opined that the revised specifications do not bring in any new technology for improving the test results or accuracy and on the other hand, implementation of -17- ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 the revised specifications would result in there being only a single eligible bidder. The revised specifications were hence found to be unjustified. As the tender had been invited with the revised specifications, the KMSCL was permitted to invite fresh tenders with the original specifications. The proceedings of the State Mission Director was produced in W.P.© No.15685 of 2021, along with the statement of the Standing Counsel. After referring to the recommendations of the State Mission Director, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent among the respondents to re-tender the contract for supply of test kits in accordance with the statement. **==> picture [381 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** recommendations of the State Mission Director was approved in Ext.P10 judgment and fresh tender notification published in terms of this Court's direction, the challenge on the ground that the W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 ## -18- tender is being conducted without including the revised technical specification, is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that in the present tender, both petitioner and 8[th] respondent were found to be technically eligible and their price bids accepted. The price bids were opened on 28.04.2022. There is a whopping difference of Rs.1,54,65,868.06 between the bids. Hence the contract was awarded to the 8[th] respondent. 8. Adv.Santhosh Mathew, appearing for the 8th respondent, reiterated the contentions of the official respondents and submitted that his client has been supplying equipment, test kits and reagent to the satisfaction of all concerned. The 8th respondent had raised objection against inclusion of additional technical specifications on being convinced that the specifications were introduced to suit the features of the petitioner's equipment. Those features did not have any clinically significant advantage and -19- ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 would have made the procedure more costly. The objections were found to be correct by the State Mission Director and the opinion of that authority was accepted by this Court. As the present tender is conducted in terms of this Court's direction, the petitioner's remedy, if any, is to challenge Ext.P10 judgment. The contention that the 8[th] respondent's equipment has become obsolete and test results are inaccurate, is stoutly refuted. 9. This Court does not have the expertise or wherewithal to decide whether, introduction of the additional technical specifications was justified or not. Such consideration is beyond the realm of Article 226, particularly when the decision under challenge was taken by experts, based on technical parameters. In holding so, I am supported by a plethora of precedents, including the decision in _**Municipal Corporation,**_ W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -20- ## _**Ujjain v. BVG India Limited [(2018) 5 SCC 462]**_ , paragraph 10 of which reads as under; _“10. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or a quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of the Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 (CA)] principle of reasonableness, but must also be free from arbitrariness and not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. [See the judgment in Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. [Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138] ]”_ 10. As regards the contention that the W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -21- technical committee and the Managing Director of KMSCL having concurrently rejected the objection against the additional specifications, the State Mission Director could not have compelled the KMSCL to issue fresh tender notification after deleting those specifications, it is essential to note that the State Mission Director had acted in terms of this Court's direction. The direction in Ext.P10 judgment was rendered after taking into account the report of the State Mission Director that the revised specifications suggested by the technical committee are not bringing in any new technology for improving the test results or accuracy and will lead to only one bidder being eligible to participate. This Court also took note of the suggestion that in order to ensure a level playing field, the earlier tender should be cancelled and the KMSCL permitted to conduct fresh tenders with the original specifications. The contract having W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -22- been re-tendered accordingly, the challenge against Ext.P12 amounts to a collateral challenge which is impermissible. In this context, it will be profitable to refer the judgment in _**Union of**_ _**India and others v S.P. Sharma and others [(2014)**_ _**6 SCC 351],**_ wherein the Apex Court categorically held that, even while fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution are to be protected, it is the duty of the court to ensure that the decisions rendered by the Court are not overturned frequently, that too, when challenged collaterally. The above legal position being as above, I refrain from considering the contention regarding the illegality in the State Mission Director's opinion given in contradistinction to that of the Technical Committee and the Managing Director of KMSCL. The contention that Ext.P10 judgment is not binding, the petitioner not having been made a ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -23- party in the writ petition cannot be sustained for the reason that the principal, M/s.Parkin Elmer Ltd, was arrayed as a respondent and was also heard by the authority. If aggrieved by the direction issued without hearing the petitioner, the proper remedy is to either seek review of the judgment or challenge it in appeal. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** scl/ W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -24- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17360/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF E-| |---|---| ||TENDER NO.KMSCL/EP/T375(R)/1002C/2020.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE| ||NO.KMSCL/EP/11642/2020, DATED| ||10.2.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 06-04-2021| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE| ||5TH RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF| ||TENDER NO.KMSCL/EP/T402(R)/1002C/2021,| ||DT.20-04-2021.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.27-05-| ||2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.11455 OF 2021 OF| ||THIS HON'BLE COURT.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE| ||NO.KMSCL/EP/5949/2021, DT.22-06-2021| ||ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO M/S.| ||PERKINELMER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS| ||NO.KMSCL/EP/5949/2021, DT.26-07-2021| ||OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 6TH| ||RESPONDENT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING| ||HELD ON 26-04-2021.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.| ||18-09-2021 SUBMITTED BY M/S.| ||PERKINELMER (INDIA) PVT. LTD, BEFORE| ||THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.07-12-| ||2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.15685/2021 OF THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT.| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL| ||SPECIFICATION IN APPENDIX 1 IN TENDER| ||NO.KMSCL/EP/T432/1002C/2022, DT.03-03-| ||2022.| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER| ||NO.KMSCL/EP/T432/1002C/2022, DT.03-03-| ||2022 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 -25- Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.0605-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.1305-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE SATISFACTION LETTER DATED 11/07/2018 PROVIDED BY THE STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN FAVOUR OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 24/05/2021 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY IN COCHIN TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R8(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 24/05/2021 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY IN COCHIN TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R8(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 25/05/2021 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY IN COCHIN TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R8(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENTS DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES Exhibit R8(F) TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION FROM THE 8TH RESPONDENT FOLLOWING THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE TRAINING SESSIONS Exhibit R8(G) TRUE COPY OF THE CHAN OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO KMCL E- TENDER EQUIPMENTS Exhibit R8(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/02/2201 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R8(I) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE BID DOCUMENT FOR THE FOURTH TENDER Exhibit R8(J) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/04/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, -26- ## W.P.(C) No.17360 of 2022 KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION Exhibit R8(K) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/05/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION Exhibit R8(L) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2021 IN W.P(C) 15685/2021 Exhibit R8(M) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2021 IN W.P(C)15685/2021 Exhibit R8(N) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 11/11/2021 FILED IN W.P(C) 15685/2021 BY THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT, INCLUDING THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09/11/2021 ANNEXED THEREO. Exhibit R 4 (a) Exhibit R8(O) A true copy of the notice published by the KMSCL dated 10.2.21 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 04/05/2022 CARRYING THE SUMMARY OF THE PRICE BID STAGE AFTER OPENING OF TENDERS Exhibit R 4 (b) A true copy the Minutes of the Technical Committee dated 9.3.21 Exhibit R 4 (c) A true copy of the letter issued by the MD, KMSCL to the Seventh Respondent dated 18.3.21 Exhibit R 4 (d) A true copy of the Amendment to the Technical Specifications published by the KMSCL dated 17.5.21 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF WPC NO.15685/2021 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT