The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of orders dated 2gr10r2024 passed by the r..earned singre Judge in W.P. No.21968 of 2024. Counsel for the Appeilants: SRI T. RAJTNTKANTH REDDY, ADDTTIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.i and 2: SRI TARUN G. REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I : : : l I l .l rHE HoN',BLt THE ACTING:fir" JUSTICE suroY PAUL THE IION,BIE SMT. };;TICE RENUI{A YARA No.173 OF 2025 JU (Per Hon'bte Smt Justice Renuka Yorq) T: Heard Sri T. General aPPearing Rajinikanth Reddy' Iearned Additional Advocate for the appellants and Sri Tarun G'Reddy' learned ndent Nos' I and2' Perused the record counsel for resPo 2. This is an intra-court appeal hled by the appellants/respondent Nos.l and 2 aggrieved by the order dated 2AJrO2O24 passed in W.P.No.2196 8 of 2024 by the learned Singte Judge of this Court declaring ttre action of the appellants/ respondent Nos' I and 2 in petitioners ira respect rejecting the tender bid of the respondents/writ DSLT/JB 12024 l'225' dated 14'06'2024 of tender No'TGMDC/S&Mi for de-siltatio rt of 5'16'284'77 MT of sand from Mahadevp:ur.l2024l6 sand reach at J ayashankar Bhupalpatly District as illegal for not assigning reasons' the award of tender No'TGMDC/S&M/DSLT/ JB|2O241225' dated 14J)62024 in favour of respondent No'3 has been set aside and the writ appellants are directed to call for fresh bids in respect of tender No'TGMDC/S&M/DSLTiJ"'"'-,13*'- dated, 14.06'2024' I I 2

3. The backgrorrnd facts of the case are that the wril appellant No.2 floated tender No.TGMDC/S&M/DSLT/JB/2024/r|25. dated 14.06.2024 for de-siltation of 5,I6,2a4.27 MT of sand from Mahadevpur /2O2,4,t6 sald reach at Jayashankar Bhupalpally District and that re said tender was floated for a contrar:t value of approximately Rs.5,O0,79 ,623 / -. Respondent No.1 represented by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 participated in the bid. The bid was awarded in favour of respondent No.3 as per the au.ard dated I9.O7.2O24. The bid submitted by respondent No.t has been rejected as per the information provided in the ,lelangana e-procurement portal.

4. The rejection of their bid is challenged by respondent l,los. 1 and 2 0n the premise that the writ apperlants did not conduct t,,e tender process and awarding of the tender in fair and transparen manner by referring to the iegal ratios laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in Dhannapal Satgapal Limited u. Deputg Commission er o! Central F;xcise, Goruhati and. othersl, pKF Srid.har and SantholeoLm a. Airports Economic Regulatory Authorttg oJ rndia wp(c) No.r2s8s of 2021), suradeshi cotton Mills. u. Ilnion of Ind.iaz and punjab State pouer Corporation '1zorsls scc srs ' atn t9g1 scc 8t8 3 Limited @lnd' rrrrother a' EMilA Cool Limited and otft.r,rs3 ' Respondent Nos.1 and 2 primarily questioned the acdon of writ appellants in rejecting the tender without assigrring reasons and without giving them hearing for giving clarifrcation on their Work Done Certifrcate' The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India holding that decision making process adopted by the writ appellants is contrary to principles of natural justice and lacking in transparency in the tender process' It is held that no reason is assigned for rejecting respondent No'1's bid as faiting to have fulfilled clause 3'2 tender conditions' In the light of the respondent No'l's specific case that it fulfrlled the requirement under clause 3'2 of the tender conditions' It is held that as per the entry made in e-procurernent web portal on lg 'O7 '2C)24 ' the writ appellants trave clearly observed that respondent No' 1 has fulhlled the eligibility criteria referring to the contents o[ Remarks column which are extracted and Produced below: Re AS T Docum ne t

5. Further, the learned Single Judge held that the writ "n*t'lo failed to give an opportunity to respondent No' I to grve frcadon in case of any ambiguity about the contents of the Yolk \ ,clari \ ' (zo2z)z scc t 4 Done Certifrcate_ l-astly, the leamed Single Judge also refi:rred to the writ appellants rssuing l,etter of Intent to responder:Lt No.3 on IO.O7.2024 and the award of tender to respondent No.3 took place on L9.O7.2O24. Thus, the writ petition v73s alleulsfl leading to Iiling of the writ appeal. 6 The learneci .Additionat Advocate General would submit that the Government follorved correct procedure as spelled or.Lt in the procurement manual and the tender notiflcation. It is ernphasized that respondent Nc,.1 failed to meet the tender conditio n No.3.2, which reads as follorvs: 7 "The bidder shall have satisfactorily completed at least one r,,ork of Mining/Civil/ lrrig. tic.r llork t'''" not less than Rs'4'00'63'698/ Rupees Four crore Sixt1. .1.h r,:e ,nor,o' var u e o r wo r kr i n v o i v ns .""":T""r:::T::J:iTffi ::i;:i"l" :: j, J sand in State/Cenrral Government Undertakings during the last three (3) ,\ ears.,, In this regard referring to the Work Done Certificates urde Ref'No'KGM/JVR c)o II/2023/338c/608, dated 12/ 76.05.2023 and Ref.No.KGM/JVR o..: tr/2023/338D/609, dated 12/ 16.1)5.2023 submitted by respr;ndent No. l, it is argued that said cer.tificates clearly demonstrate that respondent No. 1 did not complete the contract but rather !trr: .,u.ork is still in progress, in .prese,t work" column. s -atus of 5 In that context' it is argued that any bidder has to produce 8. certifrcate showing satisfactorily completed work of value not less than Rs.4,OO,63,6981- during the last three years of the bid' It is argued that among 14 technical qualified bidders' 8 were rejected for not complying tender'clause 3'2 and the same was informed through O8.O7.2O24- Respondent No'l is one e-procurement website among 8 bidders whose tender was rejected for failing to meet the criteria. The learned Additional Advocate General argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments held that in contractual matters the scope of judicial review or interference under Lrticle 226 in excePtional circumstances' of Constitution of India is available arbitrariness and illegalities' such as, on account of mala fides' Whereas, in the instant case' no specific instance of malice is made out. OnlY because respondent No' 1 failed to satisfy the condition under clause 3'2 of tender condition its bid was rejected which is not arbitrary. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Agtnatel India Private Limited a. Resourys Telecom oad other#, wherein it is held that .The atrove mentioned statements of law make it ampty ctear tnlt *,(] *t-:: the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and apprccratc interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the its requircments' *'o Ianguage of the tender doc'-"t" o'subserving the purchase o[ the tcnder' the Court-rvould prefer to tttp t""ttuit't Further to that',the technical evaluation or compirison uy tt'" co"t i" impermissible; and even if the intcrprctation givcn to rhc renJer document by th€ person inviting offers is not as such acceptablc to the "L" '(2022)5 scc 362 5 constitutional ccu1, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interferirg with the rnterpretation sive:1 "

9. The contention of respondent No. I about giving opportunity under clause 21 to provide clariflcation with respect to Work Done Certificate, it is arqued that the employer can seek clarific;rtion at its discretion' when the work Done certi'cate itself clearrv reflected that respondent No.1 did not complete the work, there is no need to seek any clarification. Lastly, it is argued that the leamed Single Judge erred in observing that the Ietter of intent dated 1o.o7.2o24 was issued in favour of respondent No.2 and ttre same is c,lntrary to the information on the web site which shows tender was anvarded on r9.o7.2o24. Accorc{ing to the learned Additional Advocate General, after the bids u,ere submitted by prospective bidders, the icids were evaluated by the 1i:nder Evaluation Committee on OB.O.,;..2O24 to ascertain the condirions stipulated ald successful bidder was issued the letter of intent ot 70-07.2.,24 and said information was upl0aded on 19.07.2024. In rhe entire process, there is no mala fi.d.e r:rr lack of transparency. k:arned Additional Advocate Genera_l reJ.erred to judgment in W.A.Nos.tt6 and t17 of 2025, d.ated 13O2.2O2S wherein it was held r.hat: "16. A carcful r<adrng of Clause l7O reproduced hereinabove sho\vs that i[ bidder has been bannrxr bv- an'orhcr body and has disclosed this fact crearl. in his bid, as a rule of rhu nrb SaCt- m4nqggrnsnt will not disqualify him. Th€ SCCL management rcserves rrghr to take appropriate decision in such eventuali y. The language emltloved rrr thc akrresaid clatrsc shows that it enablcs rhc SCCL managemcnL ro tak(. r.l appr,,prrarr rleclst,)n in such cases where drsclosiurc o[ /,, 7 banning is there. The decisron taken by SCCL management in the present case is to to put the clock back and disquatify the petitioner' At this stage' we are not inclirr€d direct the Singareni Collieries Company Limited to undertake the entire exercise afresh. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited is serving pubtic interest' For the smooth production and running of Singareni Collieries Company Limited' supply ot bulk explosive is essential Any interference by us at this juncture' will hamper the activity ot the industry and consequently wilt have an adverse impact on public interest- Thus, in the peculiar facts o[ these cases, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. More-so, alter passing of irnpugned order' third party rights are created and contracts have been granted to nine (9) contractors and they are not parties before us-" 10' On the basis of above jud.gment, it is arsld that t}ris Court in similar cases on earlier occasions declined to interfere with the decision made by the Government while awarding tenders'

11. lrarned counsel for respondent Nos'l and 2 argued that it has fulfrlled condition under clause 3'2 of tender conditions and therefore it was found to have quatrled as per the entry in web portal dated lg.oT.2024.ItisargrredthatthelearnedSingleJudgehadassessed tender process adopted by tlte writ appellants in proper with respect to meeting the claus e 3 '2 of tender not providing opportunity under tender clause 2l for giving clarifrcation about the Work Done Certificates and rejecting the In that regard, learned counsel for tender without assigning reasons' respondent Nos' 1 and 2 referred' to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in M/s. Kasturi Lol I'orkshi Reddg' rep' bg its perspecttve conditions, 8 trtdrtner Shri Kasturi La.l and. others a. Stoite of Jamrnu and. Kahsmir and anothef, wherein it is held that "15..-......Where th,r government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering int,) contracrs or granting other forms of largess. tlre Government cannot act arbitrarily at its, sweet will and, Iike a private individual, deal with any person it pleases r).t its action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant- The governmental action must not be arbitrary or capri,:io,s, but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance_. "

12. l,earned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that no reasons zrre ilssigned for rejecting its bid and thereby there is 'iolation of principles of natural justice. In that conte:t, learned counsel for the respondents referred to judgment of th.e Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in DhoLrrnapo;ts case (1 supra) and relevant portion is extracted ancl produced below: "The principles of nr rural lustice developed over a period of time and which is still in vogue and valid eten toda]'were: (i) rule against bias, i_e_ nemo iudex in causa sua; and (ii) opporrunrLv l beiig heard to rhe conccrned party, i.e. audi alterarn partem. These are knou,n as princrples ol natural justice. To these principles a third principle is added, u,hich is of reccnr rlrigin- It is clur], to give reasons in support of decision, namely, passing of a reasoned order'.

13. Analvsis bv the Court: A perusal of ttre record and the arguments of both the counsel show that the crux or the dispute is w.ith respect to whether or not respondent No. 1 rlet the criteria under clause 3.2 <.rf tender conditions, whether the writ appellants acted with mala fid.es in .'ot providing--an opp.r'tunity to respo-dent No. I to give crarification 'itggo)a scc r 9 " ,Oora its Work Done Certificate andl lastly whet]rer the writ appellants did not give a reasoned order for rejection of bid submitted by respondent No'1 and thereby the tender process lacks transparency'

14. First and foremost tender under clause 3'2 makes it mandatory for the bidders to submit Work Done Certifrcate showing satisfactory completion of at least one work of mining / civil/ irrigation (8O% of value of work) of value not less than Rs'4'OO '63'69Sl- involving excavation and removar any earth/ mineral including sand State/Central Government Undertakings during the last three yeaIs. The aforementioned condition requires that the bidder shall comPlete at least one work of required monitory value ' complete satisfactorilY that too within last three Years of the date of the bid While so, the Work Done Certifrcate submitted by respondent No'I shows that the said company has taken up tlle work of Singareni Collieries through work order No'76OOOO9282' dated 2l'lO'2O22 and' has completed certain work upto March 2O23 and the status of the work is "work in progress" similarly' respondent No'1 has taken up another work from Singareni Collieries Company Limited and the certihcate shows that the work is still in progress' The contents of the Work Done Certihcates submitted by respondent No'l failed to meet two criteria, i'e' completion of work and completion of work 10 C satisfactorily. On1_v when the entire work is completed that too to the satisfaction of the employer, it can be said that responderrt No. t has successfully fulfilled the criteria under clause 3.2 of tender conditions a,d n ot otherwise. The contents of the work Done Certificate speak fbr themselves and cannot be given any other interpretation. The respondents would contend that the contracts awarded are for a oeriod of l l months and 17 months rr:spectively and each component of work done is a separate piece work which is to be treated as completed satisfactorily. such interpretarion of the contents of the Worl< Done Certificates is not acceptable.

15. coming to the aspect of seeking clarilication from the bidder as per clause 2 1 0f tender conditions, said tender condition itself clearly shows that the crarification may be sought at the discretion of the employer. In case. the employer after perusing the contents Work Done certirrcate has come to the concrusion that the work is st,r in progress and that has not been completed, no fault can be found with the employer. A conjoint reading of clause 3.2 and:,21 of the tender conditions together with the contents of work Done CertiEcates does not make out a positive case in fiavour of respondent No.1.

16. Coming to the 3ontention of respondent Nos. I and 2 that as per clause 22.r, t],e etigibility criteria is as per definition ITB clause 3 I 11 and only when the eligibiiity criteria is met' the further evaluaflon takes place ' To ascertain the case of respondent Nos'1 and 2' said entry in ttre web portal is produced below: Technical Parameters Parameter Operat As Per rcnder document Para met€r As Per tender list: Date lYPe Text Min

0.00 Max

0.00 Fur6[ Yes As Tend€r Per E{aluauon Chuse of Tender coodltrons 17 . A reference is made to the contents of above award of tender dated 19'O7' 2rJ24 tothe "Remarks' column wherein it is entered as "As per tender document'' This entry in the Remarks column is mis- interpreted by respondent No'l to mean that respondent No'1 has met the eligibility criteria as per 3'2' To the contrary' the meaning of the contents of "Remarks' column can be construed as that respondent No 1 qualified for further evaluation of the bid as it has met the eligibiliry criteria by hting all the required tender documents including the Work Done Certihcate' The title of the cohrmn is "Remarks'. Remarks with respect to whether the bidders have frled all the documents or not' Only such bidders who have filed dl the documents are eligible for evaluation of their bids and further steps' 18. The next column is titled "evaluation comments"' wherein it is cleady mentioned as "clause 3'2 conditions not fulfrlled" ' Therefore' " eJ9t" scrutiny of the contents of "Remarks" column and the 1,2 R contents of "evaluation comments, column shows that the contents of the Remarks column are meant for noting down the eligibilify of a bidder pima- facie on account to filing of required documents as per tender notification and not on the basis of conten ts of said documents' onty after the documents liled for the evaluzrtion of the bid are in orde., the contents are examined and an evra.luation is made as to the erigib,ity of the bidders and thereby respordent No. 1 has been found to be lacking to have met the conditions under clause 3.2. However, respondent No. I is mis-interpreting the contents of "Remarks" column ald the "evaluation comments, column and the same has been erroneously relied upon by the Iearnecl Single Judge while passing the impugned order.

19. Coming to the aspect of observing principles ol_ naturz..l justice, about passrng a reasoned order while re;ecting an appli()ation, a reasoned order is passed when there is an adjudication process, where there are two or more rival contestants, each person is heard and an evaluation is made of the rival contentions and reasoned order is passed. In the instant case, the entire tender proc(.ss took place online wherein the bids are submitted online and tht: result also has been declared online. A reason ficr rejection is the criteria for meeting the requirements of principles of natural justicc. The said reasoned order coulal be one u.ord, one line or a paragraph or l I I 13 more. In the instant case' the employer tras given the reason for rejecting bid of respondent No'l by stating that respondent No'l failed to meet the conditions of clause 3'2 of tender conditions' The said reason when written in one line or in an elaborate manner would convey the same meaning' Thus' there is no ground to accuse the writ appellants of not observing the principles of rr'atr:ral justice' 20. l,astly, mala frdes are attributed to the writ appellalts on ttre basis of issuance of letter of intent dated 1O'07'2024 while the information was made available by the writ appellants on e-procurement website indicated that respondent No'3 was declared the successful bidder and awarded the tender only on Lg'O7 '2024' In this regard, it is seen that the said allegation was not made by respondent No'l in the writ petition but was raised' only at the time of filing a rejoinder to the counter trled by respondent No'3' 21. In this regard' as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it Arii Srrryru o' State of Jammu oLnd Kashrni76' the allegations made for the frrst time in the rejoinder alhdavit do not give scope for reasonable opportunity to the respondents to give reply and therefore cannot form basis for a hnding in favour of the petitioner' Likewise the t{onble in the matter of Ashok Lanka u' Rishi Dikslrifl ' the allegations are made in the Suprerue-Court held that when ' (t98t)zscc +s+ ' lzooePscc so 14 ,s rejoinder, when no new plea can be permitted in the, rejoinder, without the leanre of the Court, such allegations canno : be relied upon. While Iegal precedents do not support respond ent No. 1 allegations made in t, e rejoinder for the first time attrib,ting mala fides' we are of the considered opinion that the contents ,f the web portal dated 79.C\2.2O24 are also mis_interpreted on accorrnt of the fact that the tender evaluation process has been completed by o8'o7 '2024 and the letter of intent was issued to the s;uccessful bidder on LO.OZ.2O24 and said information was uploadr:d in the website on 19 .AT .2024. Last but not least, after the bids are evaluated, the eligible bidder has been selected by way of lottery in the presence of all the bidders. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that even respondent No_ I participatcrd in the lottery process that took place on tO.OZ.2024 artcl therefore , no mala ftdes caa be attributed to reference Nos. I and 2, as the entirt process has been conducted in transparent manner as per the tencler. process contemplated in the tender conditions as well as notificatior_.. When the successfut bidder is selected through the process of drau,ing lots in the presence of all the eligible bidders, no malafdes can be attributed to the writ appellants in conducting the tender process in fair and transparent manner. 15 *"-n'ott"""'"nt

22. For the foregoing reasons' we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in reading the contents of the Work award dated 19'O7' 2024 arrd Done Certificates' ttre the factum of issuance of letter of intent dated 1O'O7 '2024 atd publishing said information on 19'O7' 2024 il the e-procurement online website and therefore the said impugned of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside' 23. '[n the result' the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 2a'lo'2o24 in W'P'No'21968 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscella.eous applications' if any' pending in this appeal' shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sD/-t(srurtvAsnmo JOINT REGISTRAR R To 1

4. 5. TJ LS HIGH COURT DATED:2 Tt13t2}2s ORDER WA.No.173 of 2025 ' .-irrc S,l,a --::=ar Jr\ /,€ ) 0 ? nti ,r15 z) A * Dtlr6lgrrt 0 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WIHOUT COSTS // // ,4 5