Observing the need to take cognisance of the issues raised in the PIL claiming ‘illegal activities’ in award of contract for emergency medical services earlier this year to acquire and oversee a fleet of 1,756 ambulances, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought state government's reply within a month. The impugned ‘build, finance, operate and transfer’ contract is related to 'Dial 108' ambulance project under Maharashtra Emergency Medical Services (MEMS). However, after Advocate General Birendra Saraf doubted credentials of the petitioner and termed it as a 'politically motivated' plea, the bench removed the name of Vikas Sadashiv Lawande, a social and political worker belonging to Nationalist Congress Party- Sharad Pawar (NCP). The recast title of the plea in its records is “In Re: Contract for Emergency Medical Services.” The plea filed by Lawande, argued through senior advocate Zal Andhyarujina, besides quashing the contract awarded, also sought direction from court to appoint an independent committee to conduct full-fledged probe pertaining to alleged illegal transactions leading up to issuance of impugned tender. The PIL challenged the Government Resolution (GR) of March 15, 2024 that confirmed the award of the MEMS project to a consortium of firms including BVG India Ltd Sumeet Facilities Limited. It also sought direction to the state ministry of public health to issue fresh tender as per stipulated law and guidelines. The plea stated that the previous contract awarded to BVG India for operating MEMS with a fleet of 937 ambulances was extended from February 2019 to January 2024 without any reasonable justification and subsequently a contract related to 1,756 ambulances was illegally awarded to the consortium that included the same firm. The plea claimed that the manner in which the entire tender process was dealt with 'violated basic principles of transparency, financial propriety, and accountability of government authority to the citizens.' AG Saraf opposed the plea and said that if any party intending to participate in tender progress was aggrieved, it would have challenged the tender conditions. However, only one such plea was filed earlier. He added that work order has been issued on April 15, while the PIL was filed on April 16. Therefore, the time chosen for filing the PIL itself disentitled Lawande to seek any relief from the court. “Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that cognizance of the issues raised in the PIL petition should be taken but not at the instance of the petitioner," the bench noted. It appointed senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter. Seeking the state's response within four weeks, the court posted further hearing to June 26.
