High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The State oI Development & Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.' Represented by its Principal Secretary, Women ^Tgl.a.l-gg!a.,-

2. The Director, Women De_velo_p-ment and Child Welfare Department, (WD g.CWDl, registered otfice .8-3-222 Venga|rao Nagar, Besides Madhurdnigar Metro Station Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to finalize the bids/tender submitted by the eligible and qualified personsifirms pursuant to the tender reference No.1O74MDCW/AL &SLP/EggslU2O25 dated 30/03i2025 by the 2nd respondent on or before 1610O12025 at 04.00 PM without further postponing the last date for submission of tenders. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to finalize the bids/tender submitted by the eligible and qualified persons/firms pursuant to the tender reference NO.1 074/WDCW/AL & l I i j I I i I { a I t i I I I t I I I SLP/Eggs/P2o2S dated 3olo3t2o25 by the 2nd respondent on or before 16t}6t2025 at 04.00 PM without further postponing the last date for submission of tenders, pending disposal of the above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJA SRIPATHI RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP' FOR SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER I l l 1 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: UIRIT PETITION No.157O9 of2025 This Writ Petition is frled seeking the following relief "... directing the respondents to hnalize the bids/tender submitted by the eligible and qualified persons/frrms pursuant to the tender reference NO. 1o74/WDCW/AL & SLP/Eggs /l/2O25, dated 3o.o3.2o25 by the 2",i respondent on or before 16.06.2025 at O4.0O PM without further postponing the last date for submission of tenders .... . - 2) Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learncd Senior Counsel, representing Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Advocate General appcaring for the respondents. 3) Learned senior counsel has contended that the peLilioncr I.'irm is carrying the business of running poultry f:rrms and supplying the same to its customers including ttre (iovernment. While so, respondent No.2 has issued tcnclcr notificatron vide Tcnder Ref.No. 1074/WDCW/AL & SLP/trggsili2(t25, dated

30.03.2025, for procurement of eggs (hen) as per Agmark u'ith olhcr specifications for a period of one year lor suppll' to all Anganwadi Centres (AWCs) undcr dcp:rrtmcrrt of Women I)cvclopment & Child Welfare I)epartment. As pcr the tendcr schcdule, the downloading of the documcnts sLarls from 30,03.2025 11.0O AM; the last date for submission ol the tendcrs 2 PK wp 15709 2025 online on LO.O4.2O2S at 4.OO pM; last date, time and place of submission of hard copy including EMD is LO.O4.2O2S at S.O0 pM; the opening of technical bid is on lt.O4.2O2S.at 1 1.OO AM; opening of price bid is on ll.O4.2O2S at 3.OO pM and tle tender inviting and opening authority is respondent No.2 herein. It is further submitted that as the petitioner is eligible, qualified and possessing Agmark and grading Certifies issued by the Director of Marketing, Hyderabad, it responded to the tender notifrcation dated

30.O3.2025 and submitted tenders including technical bid as welt as price bid in respect of three zones i.e. Zone l, Z,orle_Il and, Zone_ III, paid EMD of Rs. 10 lakhs for each zorLe by way of onlinc paymcnt through e-procurement portal ot Og.O4.2O2S and Rs. 10,OOO/ - by r.'",ay of demand draft in favour of respondent No.2 for each zonc on 07.O4.2025. Learned senior counsel has lurthcr submitted that initially the last date for submission of tenders ,,r,:ts stipulated as LO_04.2025 at 4.O0 pM and the same was extended from timt: to rime i.c. initially upto 15.O4.2O25, thereafter to i5.05.2025 ancl again to 16.06.2025 without assigning an-r reasons for such postponement. Learned senior counsel has strenuously contended that due to extension of last date for submission of tenders, the petitioner is unable to participate in other tenders issued by others. petitioner and other similarly situated persons/ Firms have already submitted their bids h,,. - *, E. ..t 3 PK, J wp_l5709 -2025 paying huge amounts towards EMD and processing fee and due to extension of last date, they are facing frnancial implications. It is further contended that the postponement of tenders is also having cascading effect on the beneficiaries of Arogra Laxmi Scheme i.e. prcgnant women and children upto the age of 6 age. Therefore, the Icarncd senior counsel prayed this Court to issue suitable directions to the respondents to finaJize the tenders on before 16-06.2025 without further postponing the last date for submission of tender. Reliance has been placed on Sto.te ol Haryana a. Malik Tradersl, 4) Per contra, the learned Advocate General, on written instrucLions, has submitted that presently the eggs arc procured bv various departments under different welfare schemes such as Supplementary Nutrition Programme, Mid-Meal programme, Mezrl l)rovision at residential Institutes etc. and eggs are utilizcd for provrding nutritious meal to the beneirciaries/ stakeholdcrs. The (lovt:rnment is exploring options to scaling up the cluality pararnctcrs used in Supplementary Nutrition Programme ancl Arog,r'aiakshmi to other programmes also and the said expansion is undcr acrivc considcration by the Government as the said measLrre would standardize the quality of eggs being providecl to the bcnefir:iarics along with streamlining the procurement procedurc ' 1:or Ly r: scc 2oo ! I I i i t i i 4- PKi - wp 15709_2025 and the said exercise involves policy decisions at different levels. Thus, in view of the ongoing policy deliberations, the Women Development & Child Welfare Department has postponed the tender closing date to align with upcoming policy decisions. Learned Advocate General has contended that extension of last date is merely an administrative necessi$r to align the procurement process with forthcoming policy directions to ensure uniformity and accountability in public nutrition interventions. Further, the decision to postpone the opening of the tender is taken as the department is awaiting the policy guidelines which are being formulated to have a concerted eflort in procurement of eggs by various departments of the Government. l,earned Advocate General has further submitted that the petitioner is an existing supplier and continued supptv till March, 2O2S i.e. beyond the original tender period o[ February, 2O25, without any disruption. Hence, the extension o[ last datc has caused no prejudice to the petitioner, [n fact, as pcr the terms and conditions of the tender notihcation, the hard copy of thc Demand Draft shall be submitted on or before lO.O4.'2025 whcreas rhe petitioner has submitted the same on 30.O4 -2025 dulV availing the benefrt of extension of last date for bid submission Thercfore, the petitioner having utilized the extcnsion of last date cannot file the present writ petition questioning the saicl extension. Lastly, the learned Advocate 5 PK, J wp t57A)_2O25 General has submitted that the department will open the tenders and procurement of eggs will be hnalized as soon as possible. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) As can be seen from the material on record, admittedly, the tender notification vide Ref.No.1074IWDCW/AL & SLP/Eggs/l/ 2025 was issued on 30.03.2025 by respondent No.2 for procurement oi eggs (hen) for a period of one year to the benehciaries under Arorya Lakshmi Program and Supplementary Nutrition Program for Z,ones 1 to 7. As per the said notihcation, the last date and time for submission of online bids is 1O.O4.2O25 at 4-0O PM; last date, time and place for submission of hard copies including DMt) is stipulated as 1O.04.2025 at 5.OO pm at the office ol rcspondent No.2; opening of the technical bid was scheduled on I l 04.2025 at I L.o0 am and opening of price bid was scheduled on the same day at 3.O0 pm at the oflice of respondent No.2. I lou,ever, thc stipulated tender closing date i.e. 10.04.2025 was extendecl to t 5.04.2025, again to 15.05.2025 and again to

16.06.2025. Though the petitioner has contended that it paid IIMD of Rs- lO lakhs lor each zone, as per the contentions of the r('sl)onclcnts Lhc pctitioncr submitted the hard copies at the olfice ol respondcnt No.2 only on 3O.O4.2025. Thus, the petitioner hacl -6 wp-l5709 PKT' -2025 r', availed the benefit of extension of closure date and thereafter filed the present writ petition questioning such extension, which cannot be appreciated 7l That apart, it is the specific stand of the respondents that to scaling up the quality Nutrition programme the authorities are exploring options parameters used in Supplementary Arogralakshmi to other programmes also and the said expansion is under active consideration b_v the Government in order to standardize the quality of eggs being provided to the beneficiaries. In that view of the matter, no mala fide can be attributed to the respondents in extending the last datc from time to time and even the same is also not the case of thc petitioner herein. Therefore, the decision of the respondents to extend the last date on administrative grounds cannot bc interfcred with by this Court. 8) lt ls relc\.ant [o In this context. Impex (p) Ltd. us. Hontrle Supreme Court has notcd that Centrq.l Medical stare that in Shobikaa Seruices Societg?, t]ne and it tender The State can choose its ou.n rncthod to arrive at a decision is free to grant any rcla-\atron 1or bona fidc reas ons, if the conditions permit such a rcla.xarion. It has been further that the State, its corporatrons, instrumentalities and ncies have the public dut], to be lair to all concerned. Even making process, the when some delect is found in the dccision 2 (2o16) r6 scc 233 a a) -7 - PK, J wp_15709-2025 ( ( Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Arncle 226 \.rrith great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point." 9) For the aforementioned reasons and in view of the settled proposition o[ Iaw, referred supra, this Court does not frnd any ground to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. 10) lnsofar as the judgment relied by the petitioner is concerned, the said case is distinguishable on facts with tl.e present case as in the said case the Court was dealing with forfeiture of bid security deposit u,hercas in Lhc present case the grievance of ttre petitioner is with regard to extension of last date. 1l) However, keeping in view the interest of benefrciaries of Supplcmentan' Nutritron Programme and Aroryalakshmi programme as u,e Ll as thc tenderers, who spent substantial amounts tow,ards DMDs, and also the fact that the subject tenders irrc invitr:d lor thc period from April, 2025 to March, 2026, and alr<-'adv morc Lhar-r 2 ',., monlhs are elapsed, the respondents shall ensurc that the tenders are fioalized at the earliest possible and stricth' as per larv. 12) With thc above obscrvations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at thc stagc ol admission. tt is also made clear that in view of the nature of relief sought in the u,'rit petition, this Court has disposed 8- *p r sToe_;'J;l' of the writ petition even in the absence of the counter and based on the written instructions produced before this Court. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG A TANT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Principal.Secretary, Women _Development and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. Th_e Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Deoartment. (WD and CWD), registered office .9-3.-22? Vengatrao Nagar, Besi8es tvtiOiririanagii Metro Station Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies a BS TKS i I I ! I I I 1 I I I t 1 I t' HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 t ,,1 .a" : ti i: 5 r..i :.e / :) t ', 0 3 sEP 206 o ORDER WP.No.15709 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS i I I { I I I i e