The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in suppoT^9|_the peiiton, itu iiln court may oe pr"i.LJt" suspend the order dt.22lO1t2O2S passed in W.p No.-12012 of ZOi3. Counsel for the Appeltant: SRI M.A.K. MUKHEED Gounsel for the Respondent No.i & 2: SRl. R. NAGARJUNA REDDY, counser forthe Respondenr No.5: ,-a?llir%1"[1t^?ifirlHEALrH & FW The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT , ,)e THE HON,BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No .L63 of 2O25 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'bte the Actitlg Chtef Justice SuioA Paul) Sri M.A.K.l[ukheed, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pteader for Medical and Ht:alth, for respondent Nos' 1 and 2 atd Sri Srinivas Rao Pa r:hrn'a, learned counsel for respondent No'S'

2. Heard on acltnissron. This Intra-Oourt Appeal takes exception to the order'

3. dated 22.O12O21;, passed by the learned Single Judge 1n WP.No.12O12 of 2023

4.Theadmittecfactsbetweenthepartiesarethattheappellarrt, who is the writ pe[rtioner and respondent No.5 submitted their bids pursuant to the notification inviting tender issued in February'

2023.Thestarrdoflearnedcounselfortheappellantisthatthe appellant was already running his canteen with tre ofltcial respondents. The, appellant's technical bid was consideled and no deficiency was pointed out. He was shocked to see the proceedings dated 24.03.2023 (Page No.94), wherein the writ petitioner despite being Ll has not been given the tender. Instead, respondent No'S I i..t:'-. was granted tender, which was called.in question before the Writ Court. 2

5. The bone of contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that since the apperla,t was a-lready running the canteen with the official respondents and in the technical bid; no deficiency was pornted out, the appellant shouid not have been deprived for not producing the Food Safety Licence. However, this Licence was .subsequently,, produced by the appellant. Food Safety Thus, Writ Court was not justified in rejecting the writ petition. 6. The jearned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and pointed out ihat as per the terms ald conditions of tender notification, the bidder was required to submit necessary documents such as trade licence, labour licence, Food Safety Licence as well as Sales Ta_x Certificate. Condition No. 19 of the tender conditions was pointed out. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order of aforesaid writ petition has pointed as under: " Z. Having heard learned counsel on eiLl pe ru sed tr,. ilate.ia r o,, ...o.j, ii' i"" . ;; r'il::.,;rX."rT**::H question was initiated , by the 2,d respondent through a notihcation issued in p.t.""rv -iozi; t;.#" and conditions of which expricitlv reorrired uiaJJ."-io-"ir;;i',' Deposit (EMD oi R.. z,oo,oOO) "".f""g "" Earnesr Money wirh mandarorv iliXil-"il.ll"llldine a varid r'"J slr.olii'"Lse, rrade Li.ensl'. etcetera' Admittedlv' petitioner and rhe tf"-^3-:":tificati'. process. wherein ,.r*,^"*.: ,jj;: T::t::ffi:rl" Jffi" :i:T# respondent at Rs. 33.0007 p.. rnon tt ."Hor.uJi.r, upon scrutiny of [[: f;;]#::,"o,o.lt.io":.1"^uia *,s iou;;';;.,-.o...pliant due J c.-;itt;;," " .# oi ",I?'oo.H: J"%T,.H:1".s,'H:*ffi Sxi _ - I -iil t'#.'-,,: GGFtr, and CSFIMO GGH, evaluated the bids on 22'O''!'2O23' Ji"qri"frf*a petitioner ior non-compliance with marrdatory ."qrli..-".tt" an(l negotiated with the 56 respondent to match the highest bicl. Tl-ris negotiation resulted in the 56 respondent ;;?;;i;c to pry n" +s,"ooo1- p"' month rherefore' the imcugned the 5th resp'ondent oroceedings was issued awarding contract .to 5;;';;","; =r*" aate'*ftiitio'itt was. directed to vacrlte the t6t)4.2023" t-n the light ol the above' Lt is cltar that ;';i";=";, disqualihcatron 'rt petrtronet-*''" i^""d on a clear and objective criterion. l''urtlermore, petitioner suppressed. materia) facts' including his non-compUi"tt *itn tender requirements trnd the committee's sr-tllsequent negotiation with the 5m respondent' lhe Petitioner's crrse and Suopression ol such f'"tt '"ndtt*ines casts doubt on their bona fides'"

7. A plain reaciing of this paragraph shows that since the appeilant dicl not produce the valid Food Safety Licence along with his bid, the autho:ities have treated him as disqualified' The learned Single Judge in pzLragraph No'8 of the impugned order has rightly held that the scope of jud'icial review in tender matters is limited' This Court is mainiy concerned with the correctness of the decision making process. (ltherwise, in the present day economic activities' it is within the p:'lrrince of employer to decide as to rrn'hc m contract is to be given. Srl far the decision making process is concerned' we are constrained tc' hold that no fault can be found in sttch decision making process Merely because the appellant was running canteen for the last ferv yr:ars, it does not give him any licence nor- to produce the valid Food Szr-fety Licence, when it was a mandatory eligibility condition of tender inviting notification'

8. Pertinentlv, the appellant has not chosen to file Food Safety Licence along with this Writ Appeal also' whereas' sar d licence of I I ?.tain:ftt€,::.:::<&;.58 I l o 4 found in respondent No.S is filed along with Writ Appeal. Thus, we frnd no di{ficulty in accepting the finding of the learned Single Judge that along with tender documents essential document establishing eligibility was not filed. Thus, no fault can be the decision making process. Apart from that, pursuant to a negotiation, the L2 agreed to pay tender quoted price which was offered by the Ll. Thus, the employer has taken care of its institution,s financial health and interest. The iearned Single Judge has taken a plausible view. In absence of producing valid Food Safety License, the appeilalt could.qot.ggt any enforceable right to participate in the proceedings and succeed. i 9 T"ne Writ Appeat sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No .. costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI EPUTY REGIST SE N OFFICER To, BN LS

1. OneCCto SRI M'A.K. MUKHEED' Advocate[OPU i. 5il dd 6 sFii Snrrutvns RAo PACHWA'-A9.Y9'.q 'a. ii'i" dd"'i"-Gi FoR tvteotcRl' HEALTH & FW' H 4. Two CD CoPies ?N- Telangana. [OUT] l3J?'"Y31",.,ne state or HIGH COURT DATED: 1 7 10312025 , JUDGMENT WA.No.163 of 2025 ( ) -i --_)::: tl E STA I €' 11 APR M 2 o t llsr'.rt c \tO t DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ( A- 4 3 z-) i I