M/s Krishna Constructions and Amrutha Canteen v. 1. Mis Krishna constructions and Amrutha canteen

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to Vacate the lnterim order dated 0710412023 granted in WP.No. 12012 of 2023. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMILYWELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA The Court made the following: ORDER a) (^l HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESE BHEEMAPAKA TION No. 120t2 OF 2o23 T OR DE R: Pet-itioner aPProached this 07 'O4 '2023 d'a-ted Court chalienging the No' bearing 03/ Canteen/ CiGH/NLG/2023 issued by the 2nd respondent - Superintendent' Government General Hospital' Nalgonda District in favour of the sth respondent' They praye<] to set aside the sai'1 order and direct respondents to permit them to continue runnrng the canteen at the main entrance of Government General Hospital (GGH)' Nalgonda' Petitioner alleged that tender process fot 2023-24 2. was arbi',raty, i11egal' and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is; stated' petltioner was the highest bidder'' quoting Rs. 48,OOO i - per month' whereas the 5th respondent quoted Rs. 33,OOO /- per month' Despite this' contract was awarded to the 5fr respondent' allegedly' without basis lt is further stated' petitioner has been running the canteen at the said location for the past seven years' paying Rs' 35'000/- per month' however' \1the officia. respondents issued the impugned order in favour of ) 2 the 5th respondent without due process, violating tender terms and conditions.

3. This Court, while issuing notice before admission, directed, that status quo be maintained by both the parties, till tfren. The Stt'respondent, in their counter, argued that

4. petitioner suppressed material facts before this Court. It is stated, petitioner failed to submit the mandatory Food Safety License, which was a critical requirement under the tender conditions, as a result, they were disqualified by the tender committee. It is also stated, the tender committee negotiated with them to match the highest bid of Rs. 48,OOO l- per month, to which they agreed; consequently, tLre 2-d respondent issued proceedings permitting them to operate the calteen. The 5ft respondent further alleged that petitioner, despite obtaining an interim order from this Court, continued to operate the canteen at Rs. 35,OOO l- per month, causing undue advantage to himself. n ) The 2"a respondent supported the Sttt respr:rndent's

5. submissions, emphasizing that the tender process strictly adhered to r,he rules and regulations. The 2"d respondent reiterated thzrt petitioner's faiiure to submit the Foocl Safety License led. tc, his disqualihcation. It was further stated that the Sft responder:Lt's bid was considered valid after he agreed to pay the highest quoted rent.

6. I-r.eard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare and Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel on behalf of the 5e respondent. 7 . I.iaving heard learned counsel on either side and having pe:used the material on record, it is clear lhal- tender process in question was initiated by the 2"a respondent [hrough a notification issued in February 2O23; terms and conditions of which explicitly required bidders to submit an Earnest- Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 2,OO,OOOl- along with merndatory documents, including a valid Food Safet5r License. Trade License, Labour License, Sales Tax Certihcate, etcetera. Admittedll', petitioner and the Sfr respondent participated in the sa$*'- -"*ffi"'*,.' -sreUk,*,: 4 bidding process wherein petitioner quoted Rs' 4B,000/- while re 5*' respondent at Rs. 33,OO0/- per rnonth' However, upon scrLltiny of the documents, petitioner's bid was found non- compliant due to the absence of a valid Food Safety License' The Tender Committee, comprising Additional Collector, Superintendent GGH, and CSRMO GQH, evaluated the bids on 22.02.2023, disqualihed petitioner' for non-compliance with mandatory requirements and negotiated with the sth respondent to match the highest bid' This negotiation resulted in the 5tl' respondent agreeing to pay Rs' 48,OOO/- per month' Therefore, the impugned proceedings was issued awarding contract to the Sff respondent and on the same date, petitioner was directed to vacate the premises by 16 'O4 '2023 ln the light of the above, it is clear that disqualification of petitioner was based on a clear and objective criterion Furthermore, petitioner suppressed material facts, including his non- complialce with tender requirements and the committee's subsequent negotiation with the 5fr respondent Suppression of such facts undermines the Petitioner's case ald casts doubt on their bona fides. ,.7/ 5

8. Further, it is to be remembered that the Honble Supreme Court time and again has been reiterating t.hat the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited. l'he Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of thLe employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to r:xamine the terms and conditions of the present- day economic €rctivities of the Stale and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts shouid be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts I involving technical issues as there is a requiremenl of the necessary e>lpertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find far-Llt with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after cc,mplying with the proc,:dure contemplated by the tender condition s. If the Court find s that there is total arbitrariness or that thl: tender has been granted in a mola fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or 6 interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, ltrstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work (see M/s N.G.ProJects Ltd rt. M/s Vinod Kumat Jaint

9. In view of the above anaiysis, this Court hnds no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. Consequentiy, the interim order dated 07 .O4 -2023 stands vacated' ' //TRUE COPY// sd/- A. sRrNrvASA REDD' T REGISTRAR ASSIS OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI IVI.A.K.MUKHEED, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, Advocale tOpUCl 3. Two CCs to GP for lvledicat,. Healtlr qnd Family Wetfdre, Hidh Court for the 4. Two CD Copies State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] To PSK MP t 1zozz1 e scc tzt HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 ORDER WP.No.12012 of 2023 'r*'- ( l{e S rAr 1 3 0 JAt, 7[25 rO l,: v .- 241 _:tF.litt11e-+i ., :-:r'- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C I €