M/s S.S. Consultancy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Mr.D.Swamy Reddy, S/o.Notknown , aged 62 years, Occ. Managing Director, FIat No. 103, Nischint Towers, Ashoknagar X Roads, Circle No. 1 4, Hyderabad - 500 020 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the 3rd and 4th respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Directions, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide proceedings No.92/IHFMS/2022, dated 17.OA.2O22 awarding the contract work by accepting the bid of 6th respondent even though he is not eligible and not qualified in thei technical bid as per the tender conditions and not submitted the valid documents in violation of the tender conditions in spite of not fulfilling the ,condition stipulated in e-Tender Document daied -04-2022, issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, invalid, arbitrary, without any transparency, unjust, in ;t,trulfffi***********'**1,{ffi lA NO: 1 OF 2023 mgm*ff*e*w+,m*"+m Counset for the petitioner: SRI A.K. JAYAPRAKASH R/AO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FOR MEDrcAL, HEALTH & FW Counsel for the Respondent No.S: cp FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: _ - - _ The Court made the foltowing: ORDER /ll /l/ ;l ;/ I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PE-TITION NO. 7O4O OF 2023 ORDER: Petitioner questions the proceedings issued by the . 4th respondent dated 17.OA.2O22 awarding contract to the 6fr respondent and seeks a direction to Respondents 3 and 4 to award contract to them.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner has been engaged in the business of providing outsourced manpower for housekeeping, securit5r, and sanitation services to various government departments and organizations for over 15 years and it was recognized for delivering high-quality services and has a solid reputation in both the States of Telangana ald Andhra Pradesh' While so, the 4ft respondent - Government Medical College, Nagarkurnool issued e-Tender on Nil.O4 -2022 {or providing Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services (IHFMS) at the Government Medical College, Nagarkurnool, for the period 2O22-2O25.It is stated, petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted all required documents through on Iilrc portat. The bid notilication was published on 2

11.06.2022, with the bid submission closing on 28.06-2022, and technical bids were opened on the same day at 3:30 PM. Petitioner deposited the required Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 1,29,731l-. lt is asserted that four bidders participated in the tender: (1) petitioner, (2) Manogna Enterprises, (3) GDX Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd., and (a) M/ s Sai Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (the 6*' respondent). According to petitioner, the 6*' respondent failed to upload a valid pest control licence under Rule 1O(3A) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (for short, the RulesJ relating to fumigation in compliance with Condition

4.2.3(11 of the tender document, instead, they uploaded license under Rule 1O(4) which is for sale or distribution of insecticides, not for fumigation. Thereupon, petitioner is stated to have submitted representations on 15.07.2022, L7.1O.2O22, and 3O.O1.2O23 to Respondents 3 and 4, pointing out the deficiencies, however, the 4th respondent proceeded to award contract to the 6ft respondent by proceedings dated 17.Oa.2O22. It is his further case that they obtained information under RTI Act from the 5e respondent who instructed that for fumigation, I J pest control licence under Rule 1O(3A)(i) of l97l Rules is required.

3. t earned counsel for petiti,oner Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao submits that tender conditions stipulated that technical bids would be evaluated hrst and only those bidders who were technically-qualified would have their financial bids opened. Since the 6th respondent did not meet the technical qualihcations itself, ttreir financial bid should not have been considered.

4. l,earned Government Pleader for Medica,l, Health and Family Welfare, based on the counter-affrdavits filed by Respondents 3 and 4 submits that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.31, Health Medica-l & Family Welfare, C(1) Department, dated 12.03.2022, to implement the new IHMS I policy to improve patient care services in Government Hospitals, Medical Colleges, Nursing Colleges, and Nursing Schools and pursuant to the said G.O., the Director of Medical Education, Telangana, communicated the order through RC No.28lPeshi/DME/Dietl2O22, dated 09.O4.2022, and instructed that necessarlr action be taken to complete the tender process through e-Procurement website. Following these 1 instructions, the 4ft respondent issued the subject notihcation. In response thereto, four bidders submitted bids and the 6fr respondent submitted a pest control license under Rule 1O(4) which clearly mentioned that license was for manufacturing, selling, stocking, or exhibiting insecticides for commercial pest control operations. However, this license was not in compliance with the requirements set forth in the tender document, which mandates that license must be under Rule 1O(3A) for fumigation. It is submitted that, out of the four bidders, only petitioner was found to be a qualified bidder; a note was prepared detailing the facts before the Chairman of the Tender Allotment Committee for further instructions. The District Collector and Chairman of the Tender Allotment Committee instructed that hnancial bids of petitioner and the 6th respondent be opened and accordingly, I-rnancial bids were opened on O1.O8.2022, wherein annual turnover of petitioner was Rs. 8,79,28,007 /- and that of the 6th respondent was Rs. 54,66,91,788/-. The District Collector was informed that all bidders had quoted a service charge of 0.O17o. According to Rule

8.3.7 of the tender document, when service charge is the same percentage, the bidder with highest turnover is considered as ) Ll, therefore, tfre 6fr respondent was declared Ll bidder hence, they were issued tender allotment order.

5. Sri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the 6e respondent submits that Writ petition is not maintainable as petitioner has not approached tl.e appropriate forum to raise its grievance. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgments of the High Court of Delhi in SyApMonstructions a. IDPL Emplogees' Cooperatfute Grotup Housing Societg Ltdt and MIRAJ Marketing Corporation a. Vishaka Engineering2. According to the learned counsel, as per Tender Condition 4 .2.3(ll, it is required that the bidder upload a commercial pesticide applicator license obtained from the controlling authorit5r or a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with an agency that holds such a license, therefore, the assertion that the 66 respondent is ineligible is not correct. It is contended that petitioner is misinterpreting the tender conditions on their own understanding rather than as per the terrns and conditions outlined in the tender document. The said ' 2005 Law Suit (Del) 14 t6 '?Z0O+ Law Suit iDel; tO3O l l l I I 6 e\ Clause does not stipulate that pest control license certifrcate issued under Section 1O(3A) of the Insecticide Rules' 1971' specifrcally relating to fumigation, is required' Though as per Clause 8.3.1 of the tender document, financial bids are to be opened only for those bidders who qualify in the technical bid' the assertion that pelitioner is the onty eligible bidder who fulfilled the conditions of the tender is incorrect and in fact, the 6ft respondent did upload the requisite license, and the evaluation committee, having reviewed the credentials, awarded them the contract. It is further submitted that tender was awarded in favour of his client ot 17 'O8 2022, however' petitioner approached this Court on 13'O3'2023 after seven months. According to him, though the 4d respondent in counter alleges that the 6s respondent is not qualified in technical bid, the 3rd respondent did not vouch for the same' He submits that Tender Finalisalion Committee consisling of District Collector, Principal and Executive Engineer, TSMSDIC, headed by the District Collector approves tenders but not Respondents 3 and

4. In the context of the rival contentions raised by 6. \both the parties, it is to be remembered that the Ho9!1e \ I I 7 Supreme Court in M,/s N-G-Proiects Linited' a' M/s Vinod Kumar Jcin3 categoricaily held that 'Courts should be more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessar5r expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magni$ing glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision - making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is totai arbitrariness or that tender has been granted in a mala fide manner, still tJle Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contact. Though tJre grievance of petitioner is that the 6ft 7. respondent is not technically-qualihed fcir award of tender, it is for the Technical Evaluation Committee which has to decide the technical competence or ability to carry out tJle tender work' Further there is no procedural violation on awarding the contract, namely technical and financial evaluation' Moreover' ' (zozz) 6 }cc 127 \ I I 8 tender which was awarded for the period 2C22-25 is coming to a close by August, 2025. Tl:.e Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

8. costs.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. I SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I To, E !. 9ne CC to SRI A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate tOpUCI 2. \wo CCs to GP FOR MED|CAL, HEALTH a fW, High'Court ior the State of 3' Two ccs to GP FoR AGRTCULTURE, High court for the state of rerangana. 4. Two CD Copies Telangana. [OUTI [OUT N OFFICER BN BS 2' I HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.7O40 ot 2023 1r{E .S T4 14. o I 2 4 JAil zffi * l)t .:: ,'\q\ (:; g 4.t ,/z f DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS I I I I I I