The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to.To issue a Writ of Mandamus direcding the Respondent No- 1 to qualify the Petitioner No.1 Company and set aside the letter/Speaking order dated 1O.O7.2023 issued by Respondent No.1 whereby the Petitioner No.1 Company was disqualified. ii.To direct the Respondent No.1 to consider the bid submitted by the Petitioner No.1 Company for further evaluation/financial evaluation and conduct the bid on its merits. iii.Any other relief which this Honble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cas€ may kindly be issued in favor, of the petitioner along with cost of the petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in th,: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc r.rrt may be pleased To suspend the letter/speaking Order dated 1 0.07.2023 iss I ;d by Respondent No.1 whereby the Petitioner No.1 Company was disquatified. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in th. ,:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High cour nay be pleased ro stay the ongoing tender process in relation to Tender No :i ication No.G.t /GG and cH/IHFMS/83/2o22-2o23 dated 25.05.2022 and restrain the Respondents from issuing any contract / Letter of Award in favor of any b c deri any other ongoing process till the pendency of the present Writ petition_ Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GANDHAM DURGA BOS E Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Gp FOR MEDlr,:AL HEALTH FW Counselfor the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4:-- The Coud made the following: ORDER t co" wp-22266 2O2Z NOK, ' THE HON'BL E SRI JUSTICE NAGE SH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITTONN 0.22265 of2023 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit is that he participated in the e-procurement Tender Notification dated25.05.2022. After submitting its bid and receiving no communication, the petitioner discovered on the e-procurement portal on20.06.2022 that it had been disqualified for being a "Block tisted agency" citing a Government Memo from the Superintendent of MGM Hospitat, Warangal, dated02'04'2022' The petitioner had atready submitted a letter to Respondent No' 1 on 2l '06'2022' clarifying that the blacklisting direction had been suspended by this court vide order dated 08.04.2022 initiatly and later set aside entirely on ll'04'2023' Challenging this disquatification, the petitioner filed WP No' 35487 of 2022' During these proceedings, it was orally confirmed by the govemment's counsel that no Letter of Award had been issued to any bidder, despite Respondent No' 4 having frled its own writ petition, WP No' 38219 of 2022' claiming it had been awarded the contract on 08.09'2022 and 12'09'2022'

1.1 The petitioner's writ petition, W'P'No'35487 of 2022 was dismissed on28.02.2023, and the W'P'No'38219 of 2022 filed by respondent No.4wasallowed.Thepetitionerfiledanappealagainstthedismissalofhis writpetition.TheHon'bleDivisionBenchvideorderdated23.03.2023inWA Nos.3l3and36lof2o23,Setasidethepetitioner'sdisqualificationand remanded the matter back to the tender evaluation committee' by directing the committee to open and consider the petitioner's price bid against that of Respondent No. 4 and make a fresh decision within 30 days' ln compliance' the petitioner submitted a letter to Respondent No' 1 ort 19 'O4'2023 ' RespondentNo.l,initsletterdatedlT.05.2023,repliedthatitwouldonlyact ) ) \ \ 2 wp 22266.2023 N8K,I upon receipt of the original signed copy of the order. Tl:r,: petitioner provided the certified copy through another letter dated Oq 06.2023, to which Respondent No. 1 responded on L6.06.2023, acknor,.ledging receipt on 12.06-2023 and committing to act within 30 days from th,Lt later date.

1.2 The petitioner alleges that Respondenr I.l .r. I issued a final "speaking order" on r0.07-2023 disquarifling him on errirely new technical grounds that were not raised during the initial evaluatiorr rt is contended that the impugned Speaking order alleged that the bid, subrnitted in the name of "M/s Agile Security Force pvt Ltd," contained documents from three different firm names, including,'iWs. Agile Security Force pri'ar.e Lirnited,, and ,,M/s. l ^;l^ e^^..-:... rr^--, ri ilBrlu Decurirj/ t.orce," and citeci issues with the Eanu st Moncy Deposit, registration, PAN card, income tax retums, annuaI turrr I ,rer, and a solvency certificate not in Indian rupees. It also craimed a pest conii cr rice,se iackeci an issue ciate and validity period; and these discrepancies dr: ,n.nstrated a fairure to meet the tender's document requirements under Sectio;r |V,4.2.3 (a) to (n). l'3 The petitioner contends that "M/s. Agile St< uritv Force private Limited" and "M/s. Agile Security Force pvt Ltd" are min: .stylistic variarions referring to the same single legal entity, a compan-v origiru rty established as a proprietorship in 1994 and incorporated in 1995. [t con ends the solvency certificate was, in fact, in Indian rupees and that the ,:.st control license, renewed in 2019, is valid for five years untir 2024 asper the lnsecticicies Rules, I 971 ' Furthermore' the petitioner aleges that Responrlt ,nt No. 4 is itself technically non-compliant, failing to satisfy turnover :.iteria and having inconsistent experience documents, yet these lapses u..e -e ignored by the Respoudent No. l. It is contended that this entire sequerr,:e, frorn the initiar blacklisting to the rrnal disqualification on fresh technica i ies, is a concerted effort to sideline a quarified bidder in vioration of principrc,; of natural justice and its constitutional rights under Articles I a, I 9( I )(g), and 2 I . /l 3 utP _22266-2023 NBl( J 2- A counter attidavit is filed by respondent No.l-Superintendent of the Government General & chest Hospital, Hyderabad contending that the technical bid was opened for evaluation on 2l .06.2022 and not on 20.06.2022 as alleged by the petitioner, asserting that "there is no technical bid evaluation sheet dated 20.06.2022." on that date, the Technical Evaluation committee scrutinized the bids and disqualified the petitioner. The respondent acknowledges that the petitioner sent a letter dated 21.06.2022 regardingthe suspension of its blacklisting, but contends this letter was received offline only on 28.06.2022, a full week after the technical evaluation had been completed. The respondent emphasizes that this was a "purely online tender" as per tender conditions Nos. 1.1.3, l.l.l1, and 1.1.12, which stipulate no provision for manual correspondence or hard copies, thus rendering the belated physical letter irrelevant to the online evaluation process.

2.1 It is contended that the respondent No. I complied with the Order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and passed a Speaking order on 10.07 -2023 and due to the failure of thc petitioner to meet the technical conditions, he was disqualified on the origi,al technical grounds. It is contended that the petitioner submitted documents in the names of three distinct finns-r'\rll5 Agile Security Force pvt. I-td," "M/s Agile Security Force," and "lv{/s Agile Security Force private Limited"-while the bid was submitted only in the name of the first entity. The speaking order listed nine specific documents, including the Earnest Money Deposit, Organization Registration certificate, and PAN card, that were filed under the other two ftrm names, creating a faLal inconsistency. T-he respondent further refutes the petitioner's claim of a vatid pest control license, asserting the uploaded document lacked a date of issue and validity period. It is contended that the solvency certificate, while the tender condition required figures in Indian \ \ 4 wp _22266 _7023 NSK, J rupees, the petitioner's document was "in millions," whiclr 'alas against tender condition No. 9.3.4.

2.2 It is contended that the Technical Conr nittee thoroughly scrutinized all bids and found Respondent No. 4 to have lulfilled all technical and financial conditions, and that the respondent "did not r hou'any favour to any bidder." It is contended that the petitioner, who was lhe contractor from 2017 until 10.03.2023, was aware of its disqualification liom the portal on

20.06.2022 but willully he kept quiet from 20.06.2022to I1.09.202?. and only filed writ petition on i3.09.2022, after the work orde, lrad been issued to Respondent No. 4 on 08.09.2022. Furthermore, the petitiorrer oniy chailenged about black tisting... but not the above disqualifications. hereby waiving its right to challenge these other grounds later.

3. A counter alfidavit is liled by respondent l'Jo.4 e :: :n'.ial!i' conterrding that our. of a total of six bidders, five, including the petitior ( r, were disqualified at the technical evaluation stage, leaving Respondent No. -l rs the sole qualified bidder rvhose financial bid was then legitirnately openc J and accepted. lt is contended that the tender process is totally online, and tr: specific condition 1.1.3, which states "No hard copies are accepted," and 1.i lland I.1.12, which caution that bids devoid of proper documents are liable i,r re-iection and that there is "no fr-rrther chance for rectifuing the defects." It i contended that the petitioner's letter dated 21.06.2022 was submitted offline rnly on 28.06.2022, a seven-day delay after the technical bid was opened < o 21.06.2022. lt is contended that the petitioner, having been disqualified ir tenders from other major hospitals Iike M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, and (irndhi Hospital, was "well aware" of the needto upload the Court Order suspe r ling the blacklisting but the petitionel chose not to upload, thereby justifoing i s disqualification at the time of evaluation. 5 wp 22266_7023 NBL J

3.1 It is contended that the petitioner's bid was submitted in the name of "Agile security Force Pvt Ltd" but critical documents-including the Earnest Money Deposit, organization Registration certificate, pAN card, and ESI registration-were uploaded for "Agile Security Force private Limited" and "Agile Security Force." It is contended that the petitioner's pest control license, lacked a date of issue and validity period, and challenges the solvency certificate for being in "millions" instead of Indian rupees, a violation of tender condition 9.3.4, ard therefore there is no iltegality in the awarding of tender to respondent No.4, and there is no merit in the writ petition. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that Respondent No. I has acted with a wilful ignorance of both the law and its own Tender Notification, and the authority failed to recognize that "M/s. Agile Security Force private Limited" and "M/s. Agile Security Force pvt Ltd" are one and the same legal entity-a company incorporated on 05.04.1995. It is contended that Respondent No. I disqualified the petitioner unilaterally without issuing any prior notice or seeking any clarification regarding the nomenclature variation in the submitted documents. It is contended that despite the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench Order dated 23.03.2023 in W.A. Nos. 313 and 361 of 2023, specifically directing Respondent No. I to consider the price bid ofthe petitioner, the Respondent No. I engaged in dilatory tactics, first demanding a certified copy and then, upon receipt, inventing new grounds for disqualification. It is contended that so-called "technical" grounds for disqualification are unreasonable and the speciFrc discrepancies regarding document names were absent in the initial evaluation sheet uploaded on 20.06.2022 and were never pleaded in the previous rounds of litigation, and their sudden emergence after the remand order passed by this court would clearly show that the respondent No. I intended to disquati$, the petitioner on any pretext. It is also contended that the very same set of documents and )t .-, 6 '!,tp_22266 _)O23 NBK,I approvals, now questioneel by Respondent No. 1, have btr:n the basis for the petitioner successfully securing the same IFIFMS contract ft rr this very hospital in the past, specifically in 2017, and for being awarct'C numerous other government tenders. The respondent's failure to acknowltr ige this established history of acceptance is perverse and points to a s<:lr:ctive and biased application of tender conditions. It is contended that the I,etitioner's bid was fully compliant with all obligations under the Tender lri,tification, with no misrepresentation of facts, and the petitioner is renolrr red for its service qualit_y, consistently receiving perforrnance marks over 9591: from its clients in the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, and therefore seeks to qr-rash the impugneri Speaking Order date<i i0.07 -2023 and to direct F espondent }.io. I to evaluate the petiticner's bid on its merits.

4.1 In support of his contentions, the leamed counr ei for the petitioner relies on Rashmi Metaliks Limited vs. Kolkata Metrop,r itan Development Authorityr, wherein it was held that disqualification of t re company on the ground of failure to subrnit its latest income tax retum al,r rg w'ith bid/offer is not a sufficient reason for disregarding its bid/offer.

5. Leamed counsel for Respondent No. I would con end that the entire tender process was conducted as a purely online procer,Cing, governed by expiicit anci non-negotiabie conditions. The counsei wct ld heavily rel-y oo tender conditions 1.1.3, 1.1.11, and 1.1.12, which unequivr rcally state that "no hard copies are accepted," and that bids "devoid of proper C:rcuments are liable to be rejected," and that there is "no firther chance for -ectifuing defects." Within this mandatory online framework, the petitioner's .;ubsequent attempt to introduce a clarihcatory lefter dated 21 .06.2022 v Li of fl ine mode on 1(2013) 10 scc as 7 wp-22266 _2023 NEX,.l

28.06.2022 was legally irrelevant, as the technical evaluation had already been concluded on 21.06.2022

5.1 It is contended that the petitioner's bid was fundamentally flawed because it submitted documents in the names of three distinct entities: "lws Agile Security Force Pvt. Ltd,u uM/s Agile Security Force," and "M/s Agile Security Force Private Limited." The counsel would list the nine specific documents-including the Earnest Money Deposit, pAN Card, and ESI Registration-that were filed under names different from the bidding entity, creating fatal inconsistencies that mandated disqualification under tender condition Section lv ,4.2.3 (a) to (n). Furthermore, the petitioner's pest control License was invalid as it lacked a date of issue and validiry period, and that the Solvency certificate was non-compliant because it was expressed in ,'millions" instead of lndian Rupees, contrary to specific tender condition 9,3.4.

5..2 It is contended that the technical bid was opened on2l .06.2022 and not on 20.06.2022, and that therefore, the very evaluation sheet the petitioner initially challenged was non-existenr. The counsel would also allege that the petitioner engaged in strategic delay, knowing of its disqualification from 20.06.2022butwaitingto file its writ petition until 13.09.2022, only after the work order was issued to Respondent No. 4 on Og.0g.ZO2Z.

5.3 It is contended that the petitioner,s bid was re-verified subsequent to the Order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23.03.2023, and the re-verification confirmed the original, valid technical disquatifications, and therefore the decision of the tender committee was based solely on the objective failure of the petitioner's bid to meet the mandatory tender requirements, and there is no favoritism shown to any bidder, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. .\\ ) ) 8 wp 22256 ao2a NB(,I

6. Leamed counsel for P-espondent No. 4 contends hat the petitioner submitted documents from multiple, distinct legal entiti,: , to support a bid submitted in a single name; that "M/s. Agile Security For:e Plt Ltd," "IWs. Agile Security Force Private Limited," and "lv1./s. Agile Secrrrity Force" are not nomenclatural variations but separate entities, a fact con,: usively proven by the different Establishment Code Numbers allotted by the ll PF authorities; that Establishment ID APHYD/00738771000 for "Agile Secur ty Force Prt Ltd" and APFIYD0026I6|000 for "Agile Security Force f\ivate Limited" as irrefutable evidence that the petitioner interchangeably r sed documents of Cifferent firms, a practice that vitiates the very foundation of a fair tender process. It is contended that the petitioner relied on doctLr rtents pertaining to conrpietely unrelated entities, such as the "Agile Secur ty fiorce Training lnstitute" and " I\"[/s Agile Security Sen,ices Pvt Ltd," 1 r) meet the tender requirements, and this is a deliberate attempt to support tt.t bid with unrelated credentials. It is contended that the Pest Control Licen;,,, submitted by the petitioner was invalid, as it conspicuously lacked a date r l'issue and validity period, especially rvhen compared to the futly compliant :.rrtificate submitted by Respondent No. 4. Similarly, the petitioner's S,l vency Certificate, expressed in "millions" instead of Indian Rupees, was in c.i 'ect violation of the explicit tender condition 9 .3 .4.

6.1 With regard to the issue of blacklisting, it is contended that the petitioner's [etter dated 2l .06.2022 was deliberately subnr: fted offline only on 28.06.2022, a w'eek after the technical bid opening tr 21 .06.2022. The petitioner, being well-aware of the btacklisting and its s r rpension, chose not to upload the Court Order online as mandated by the tendi:r conditions, thereby knowingly risking disqualification and forfeiting any rigtLt to complain. ,t S.Z It is contended that the petitioner, des1,i16 knowing of its disqualification on 20.06.2022, "wilfully kept quiet" and or ily filed its first writ 9 wp_22266 2023 N8(, J petrtron on 12.09.2022, immediately after the work order was issued to Respondent No. 4 on oB-09.2022.It is also contended that the entire tender process was validated by the leamed Single Judge by recording a factuar finding, after calling for and perusing the entire tender record, including price bids, that "by awarding the work to the Respondent No. 4 herein, the state is not incurring any loss.', It is finally contended that the respondent No.4, having fully complied with all tender conditions is currently performing the services without complaint since t r.03.2023, andtherefore the writ petition is riable to be dismissed 7' Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner insists its disqualification was uploaded on 20'06.2022, however, the said contention is rebutted by Respondent No. r by records that the technicar bid evaluation commenced only on 21.06.2022. Further, it is the specific, evidence-based findings bome out by the record that the documents submitted by the petitioner is from three entities-"rz7s Agite Security Force P't. Ltd," "M/s Agile Security Force," and',rws Agire Securiry Force Private Limited"- with different EpF Estabrishment numbers. 7'l rhe judicial review in contractual matters are welr-settred; the r , ) scope of interference is intended to curb malafides or palpable arbitrariness, not to act as an appellate authority over the merits of an administrative decision. The tender was explicitry defined as a "purely online process,, under '1 conditions 1.1.3, l-l.lr, and, r.r.r2, which unequivocalry mandated that all i documents be uploaded online and further stating that the bids with derrcient documents would be rejected and there is no provision for subsequent rectification. The petitioner's attempt to submit a clarificatory letter offline on 28 -06-2022 regarding its blacklisting status, after the technical evaluation was underway, was thus procedurarly inconsequentiar. Fufther, the pest contror License produced by the petitioner, without specific dates and the sorvency \ 10 wp )2266_2023 NBK, J Certificate not in Indian Rupees, constituted non-adhere[:e to the tender's technical specifications. The respondent's adherence to terl s of online tender process, and disqualifiing the petitioner for not meeting tL ': terms specified, cannot be construed as a violation of natural j ustice, as the p 3 .itioner was bound by the same terms it accepted upon participating. The judllrnents relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishabl' r, as they largely concem cases where the bid was rej ected without affording, rpportunity. In the instant case, the petitioner's bid was considered and was ait o re-considered in compliance of the Order passed by the Division Bench in tl.r r writ appeals, and the petitioner was disqualified for not meeting the terms ol' he tender pfocess. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for judiciai ir tervention. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismisser .

8. Accordingly, the r.vrit petition is dismissed. No c'l its. Miscelianeous petitions pendirrg, iiany, shall stand closed. Sd/-S-.MI LLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR .1 --./ //TRUE COPY// IiECTIoN oFFlcER I I l. 9n" CC to Sri Gandham Durga Bose, Advocate tOpUC 2. rwo ccs to Gp for r,,ledicarH";;;;;;i; ffiL:;ir[i c o,r.t forthe state . 9lT"lTg"fg, at Hyderabad [our] " ,1ff":r"ri:tffir?p ror Revenue' Hish court for the state c r reransana, at 4. Two CD Copies - , "v"u'|u, To, TJ PMK HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 J ORDER WP.No.22266 of 2023 :- 1.1Ro( ES 14 U trmu6 ,61 * Og S,)ATC uED * 1 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS llla{