Bench Sr v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Judgment

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli) These Writ Appeals (W.A.Nos.939 and 941 of 2026) have been preferred under clause 15 of Letters Patent, assailing the common order dated

31.07.2026 passed in W.P.Nos.17156 & 16445 of 2026, respectively, along with the connected batch of writ petitions. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. W.P.No.17156 of 2026 is filed to declare the Memo No.564813/PROG- II/A2/2018 dated 23.03.2026 permitting Respondent No.3 to undertake centralized procurement of KGB Vidyalaya requirements, the Memo dated

20.04.2026 constituting a procurement committee, and the consequential tenders bearing Tender IDs 934945, 935035, 935066, 935069 and 935072 dated 15.05.2026 issued for supply of non-perishable items/milk/eggs to KGB Vidyalayas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as arbitrary, illegal, colourable

exercise of power and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.53, Social Welfare Department dated 31.08.2023, besides being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to follow the policy prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.53 dated

31.08.2023. 3

3. W.P.No.16445 of 2026 is filed to declare the Tender ID No.934945 and Notice No.KGBV Zone-I SS21021/44/2026IED and KGBVSSA dated

15.05.2026 issued for supply of non-perishable items/milk/eggs to 111 KGBV Schools in Zone-I comprising Srikakulam, Parvatipuram Manyam and Vizianagaram Districts for a period of 10 months with an estimated cost of Rs.33.94 Crores, along with corrigendum dated 17.06.2026, as arbitrary, illegal, restrictive, tailor-made, discriminatory and violative of the General Financial Rules, 2017 and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to issue a fresh tender by removing the restrictive conditions in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.53, Social Welfare Department dated 31.08.2023

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the Writ Petitions are as follows: (i) W.P.No.17156 of 2026: (a) The petitioners, being suppliers of provisions, milk, vegetables, fruits and eggs to various educational institutions and hostels, contend that the impugned action is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.53, Social Welfare Department, dated 31.08.2023, which prescribes the procurement procedure through State, District and Divisional Level Purchase Committees and identifies the agencies for procurement of various items. The said Government Order does not contemplate zonal-level centralized procurement, whereas the impugned Memos have introduced a five-zone procurement system and altered the competent authority for procurement by appointing the Secretary, 4 School Education Department as Chairperson and respondent No.3 as Member Convenor. (b) The impugned tender process, covering multiple districts, is contrary to the policy framework under G.O.Ms.No.53 and has adversely affected local suppliers participating in the existing district- level procurement mechanism. It is alleged that the impugned action constitutes an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power, intended to favour selected entities.G.O.Ms.No.53, issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, continues to remain in force and cannot be modified or overridden through executive Memos. Therefore, the impugned Memos and consequential tender proceedings are alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) W.P.No.16445 of 2026: (a) The petitioner, a sole proprietorship firm supplying non- perishable provisions to Government institutions in Vizianagaram District, has been supplying provisions to KGBVs through the District Cooperative Marketing Society since 2010. Procurement was hitherto conducted at the district level through the District Purchase Committee headed by the Joint Collector.The impugned zonal tender issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for supply of non-perishable items, milk and eggs to 111 KGBVs arbitrarily combines perishable and non-perishable items without disclosing item-wise values, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.53 5 dated 31.08.2023. The tender conditions, including single-zone bidding, prohibition of consortium/joint ventures, restrictive eligibility criteria and brand-specific specifications, are arbitrary and restrict competition. (b) The petitioner’s pre-bid objections regarding valuation, item- wise pricing, eligibility, consortium participation and other ambiguities were not addressed. The Corrigendum dated 17.06.2026 substantially altered the eligibility and experience criteria by introducing vague and irrational requirements, thereby changing the nature of the tender.The impugned conditions, particularly Clauses 3.2(g) and 3.2(h) as amended by the corrigendum, are arbitrary, tailor-made, violative of G.O.Ms.No.53 and Rules 144 and 173 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, and are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Single Judge, by common order, dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the State has discretion in prescribing tender conditions and that no arbitrariness, bias, or malice was established, particularly when 35 tenderers participated, and found no grounds for interference in the tender process under judicial review.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, Writ Appeal No.939 of 2026has been filled raising the following grounds: a. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that G.O.Ms.No.53, Social Welfare Department, dated 31.08.2023 governs procurement for 6 welfare institutions and that the impugned Memos and consequential tenders are contrary thereto and illegal. b. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that G.O.Ms.No.53, issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, cannot be overridden or modified by executive Memos dated 23.03.2026 and 20.04.2026. c. Learned Single Judge failed to apply the principle laid down in P. Tejeswari v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.A.No.845 of 2022 & batch) that Memos and circulars cannot supersede Government Orders issued under Article 162. d. Learned Single Judge erred in permitting deviation G.O.Ms.No.53 on the ground of administrative exigency, without any valid amendment or modification of the said Government Order. e. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the centralized procurement of milk and eggs through the impugned committee is contrary the procurement mechanism prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.53. f. Learned Single Judge failed to consider that the impugned tender conditions and corrigenda introduced restrictive and arbitrary eligibility criteria favouring select bidders, contrary procurement principles. g. Learned Single Judge failed to consider that Clauses 3.2(g) and

3.2(h), as amended by the corrigendum, were altered to suit particular bidders, rendering the tender arbitrary and violative of the laid down principles Association of Management Studies1. in Meerut Development Authority v. h. Learned Single Judge erred in applying Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, as the requirement of a single 1 (2009) 6 SCC 171 7 work order for 50% of Estimated Contract Value (ECV) has no rational nexus with the tender objective and excludes eligible suppliers. i. Learned Single Judge failed to apply the settled law that essential tender conditions cannot be altered after issuance, as held in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd., v. Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation2, West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Ltd.3, and Reliance Energy Ltd., and Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML4. The corrigendum materially altered essential eligibility conditions, rendering the tender process arbitrary and illegal.

7. The following grounds are urged in the Writ Appeal No.941 of 2026: a. Learned Single Judge erred in holding that participation of 35 bids proved a competitive tender, ignoring the appellants’ contention that the eligibility conditions favoured selected bidders. b. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that Clause 3.2(g), requiring a single work order of 50% of the ECV, was arbitrary, tailor- made and excluded existing KGBV suppliers without justification. c. Learned Single Judge failed to consider that retention of the same ECV despite reduction of quantities through Corrigendum dated

25.06.2026 unfairly restricted participation. d. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that Clauses 3.2(g) and

3.2(h) and the Corrigenda introduced unreasonable conditions lacking nexus with the tender object, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.