Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 518 OF 2008

Ambulance Access Foundation India & Anr. …Petitioners

Versus

The Union of India and others              ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This  public  interest  litigation  petition  has  been  filed  

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of  

mandamus directing Respondent No.1,  Respondent Nos.2 to  

13  and  Respondent  Nos.27  to  44  to  put  in  a  place  a  

transparent  and  fair  process  in  awarding  the  contracts  for  

running  Ambulance/Emergency  Response  Service  in  their  

respective jurisdiction.   Petitioners  submit  that some of  the  

States  have  already  entered  into  and/or  are  considering  

awarding the nominated contracts and /or ‘tailor made’ EOI

process to Respondent No.14 to run Ambulance/Emergency  

Response Services in their respective jurisdictions in the name  

of saving human lives using funds under the National Rural  

Health Mission (NRHM) of the Union of India, which according  

to the petitioner will violate Article 14 of the Constitution of  

India.   

2. Petitioners have stated that Respondent Nos.2 to 9 and  

12 - States have already entered into MOU with Respondent  

No.14  for  developing  and  operationalizing  

Ambulance/Emergency  Response  Service  in  their  State.  

Further it is also stated that Respondent No.13, the State of  

Maharashtra  has approved the  MOU with Respndent  No.14  

without  any  formal  competitive  bidding  process  or  any  

transparency whatsoever in the MOU signing process.  

3. In response to the notice issued by this Court few States  

have  already  filed  their  counter  affidavit/response  giving  

reasons for entering into MOU with the 14th respondent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that  

Union of India should lay down some guidelines in the matter  

2

of  awarding  and  administration  of  MOUs/Contracts  for  

emergency  medical  services  in  various  states  in  public  

interest.   Learned  counsel  submitted  that  they  have  made  

some suggestions which do not meet with the approval of the  

1st respondent,  fully.   The  stand  of  the  counsel  for  the  1st  

respondent is that there are matters which are primarily to be  

considered by the respective State Governments.

5.   Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for  

Respondent  No.14  submitted  that  some  of  the  States  have  

already entered into MOU with Respondent  No.14 and they  

have a well laid monitoring and review mechanism consisting  

of Advisory Council headed by the Chief Secretary and other  

senior  secretary  level  officers  of  the  State.   Learned  senior  

counsel also submitted that issues/grievances raised by the  

petitioners have to be addressed before the respective  State  

Governments who are already seized of the matter.  Learned  

counsel also submitted that there is no illegality in the process  

of entering into MOU by some of the States.  For example, it  

was  pointed  that  State  of  Gujarat  has  enacted  the  Gujarat  

3

Infrastructure Development Act 1999 as amended by Gujarat  

Infrastructure Development Act 2006 which permits selection  

by  direct  negotiations.   Reference  was  also  made  to  the  

Karnataka  Transparency  in  Public  Procurement  Act  1999  

under  which  there  are  provisions  for  selecting  a  particular  

person  or  group  for  implementing  various  government  

schemes without inviting tenders.    

6. We  are  of  the  considered  view  that  it  would  be  

appropriate that the various issues raised in this matter would  

be examined by the respective State Governments, who will be  

in a better position to examine and implement them depending  

upon the specific needs of those states like disease burden,  

health  infrastructure,  road  connectivity  etc.   Further,  

petitioners have also contended that the awarding of contract  

to Respondent No.14 was discriminatory and contrary to the  

spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since no open  

tender was invited before awarding the contract to Respondent  

No.14.    

4

7. We are of the view that if there is any irregularity in the  

tendering process, already adopted by the various states, the  

same  can  be  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  respective  State  

Governments. Further, it is also open to the petitioners and  

other  aggrieved  persons  to  approach  the  respective  High  

Courts, if found necessary, so that those courts would be in a  

better  position  to  effectively  supervise,  taking  into  

consideration,  the  local  conditions  and requirements.   With  

the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.  

…………………………………………CJI (S. H. KAPADIA)

……………………………………………J. (K. S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN)

……………………………………………J. (SWATANTER KUMAR)

New Delhi; November 18, 2010.

5