The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci _ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou may be pleased to Vacate the interim order dated 31 .O7.2025 passed in l.A. ftr.1 of 2O2S in W.p. No.22696 of 2025; and dismiss the writ petition with exen rlary costs, as being devoid of merits Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SARASANT RAHUL REDDy Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to 6: GP FOR MEDICA t.{EALTH & FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI M. P. K. ADIWA, SC F( rFl TWp Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SHASHI KIRAN The Court made the following: ORDER ') HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA lIIRIT PETITION No. 22696 OF 2A25 ORDER: Petitioner claims to be a Tribal Woman, taking up the u,ork of supplying food to the inpatients of various Government Hospitals for the last 1O years. It is stated, pursuant to the Notification dated 12.06.2025 issued by the 6th respondent, petitioner applied for Award of contract for supply ol diet to inpatients of Community Health Centre, Mudhole, Community Health Centre, Bhainsa and Area Hospital, Narsapur. In all, four Appiications were received and tenders were opened on 29.07.2025 without notice to petitioner. One of the Applications was rejected; remaining three tenderers including petitioner offered the lowest rate at Rs.72 / per person per day. Petitioner claims that she is the most experienced person and belonging to Scheduled Tribe Communit5r and also a woman entrepreneur, therefore, tender ought to have been awarded to her. However, the 5d Respondent - Additional Collector & Chairman adopted a faulty method of awarding the tender by draw of lots, which is incorrect, because the tender notification itself states that priority would be be given to the local women. Ignoring the ) same, the 5*' Rc:spondent - Additional Collector E au.arding contract to the 7fr Respondent - Societ (lhairman is '. Hence, a direction is sought to the Sth Respondent to awa: I contract to petitioner for s,upply ol diet in pursuance o the tender notificirtion datcd, 12.06.2025.

2. This Court by order dated 31.07.1 025 granted intcrim stay of ccntract awarded in favour of the i 1'resopdnent for tu,o u'eeks and the said order was extended f lom time to timc.

3. Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter r;tatinEI that tenders r.r,ere opened on 29.07.2025 in the chamt ''s ol the 5th respondent in the presence of qualilied bidders; o : of the total bids rece ived, five qualihed bidders including petr i,rner quoted an idcntical ratc of 72/- per patient per c l:.. Prior to [inzrlization, Lhe Convenor of DDMC persona ', contacted petitioner's htrsband Sri L. Lalu, a diet contractor 'cquesting to atLend the tender finalization process, for which, l- : replied that he was unablc to attend and that he would accep 'he decision of the DDMC.

3. I . I t is stated, with the consent of all LJre qualified bidders present, the DDMC finalized the tenders b Crau' of lots as per cstablish,:d practice in cases where ident :rrl rates are -) quoted. The process was conducted in a transparent manner before the Chairman, DDMC, and was video graphed. Petitioner's allegation that she was not given notice is false for, inlormation was conveyed to her through her husband and any person who voluntarily waives participation cannot later allege brcach of natural justice. The ciaim that preference shouid have been given to local ST women entrepreneurs is baseless, as no statutory provision or binding tender clause mandates exclusive prefcrence in such cases, particularly when identical rates are quotcd by multiple qualified bidders.

3.2. These respondents state that petitioner did not submi[ Mahila Samakhya certihcate along with her tender documents and it was produced later in her affidavit before this Court and the decision to award contract to the 7m respondent M/s Ayyappa Enterprises through draw of lots was taken only because all the bidders had quoted the same rate and they conscnted to the procedure. It is well-settled that participation in a tender process does not confer a vested right to have the tender awarded in favour of the bidder and petitioner cannot compel the State to award the contract merely based on her status or residence when she is tied on price with others. 'l 4

3.3. It is stressed that the scope of inte ir'rence under Article 226 in cr:ln 112611121 matters is extremely 1ir rL:ed, confined to cases o[ artritrariness, mala fides or violatio r of statutory provisions and none of these grounds are made c ; , herein. The . tender notifica Lion did not mandate exclusive prel 'rence to local women/ST canrlidates. "Priori$r" clauses in ten are subject Lo overall competition, transl ,: r conditions ilrency, and reasonablcness; thcy cannot override equality pl :-rciples when multiple e quall_r' placecl bidders exist.

3.4. [1 is e][so stated, the interim sta_v stalied supply arrangements to inpatients, dir hospital opcratrons, Petitioner misrepresented obtained interim stay u.ith regard to contract awa of Respondent No- 7. There are no bona fi.de Petition, in r.icu. of the same, Writ petition is lganted had r: t1y affecting -: facts and ded in favour in the Writ iable to be dismissed.

4. Th(-- 7th responde nt also filed counte stating that they are the strccessful bidder and awardee of th ' contract for supply of cliet to inpatients of Government Ho ':,itals under Nirmal District It is stated, they were affected d r,:ctly by the interim order, u,trich has paralysed execution of co . ract. ) At the outset, it is stated, writ petition is not 4.1 . maintainable against a private contractor. The grievance of petitioner is essentially against the decision of the District Diet Managing Commitlee and he is only a benehciary o[ lawful proccss and cannot be roped into this litigation lt is stated, by drau, of lots, they emerged as the successful bidder, hcnce, u'as ar,varded contract; accordingly, men and material were deployed ior imrneciiate commencement of supply.

4.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in matters o[ public utility contracts, interim interference should be sparingll' exerciscd, as dclay in execution affects public at large' [t is stated, petitioner suppressed material facts by not disclosing her failure to Iile proper supporting certihcates at the time of tendcr, and suppression disentitles relief' Petitioner came up with reply to the counter hled by

5. Respondents 3 and 4. tt is stated, respondents admitted that she r,l.as neither informed nor contacted to attend the tender finalization process; on this ground alone, Writ Petition may be .rllowed. In the tender notihcation, it was established that local Scheduled Tribe Woman should be given preference Being a local Scheduled Tribe woman, she is eligible to be given by awarding tender especially because all the bids t-*.:: 6 were lor the sarne amount i.e. Rs. 721- per patir nt. It is also stated, being thr: existing diet supplier, she has br I continuing to supply diet arrd hospital opcrations are not at a I affected and that there has bcen no complaint during her c r t racL period which goes Lo shou'thal hcr r,r.ork u,as appreciatecJ

6. Heard Sri Sarasani Rahul Reddy, lea -rrcrd counsel for petitioner, learned (iovernment Pleader for I{r rth & Family Wclfare on be.half ol- Rcspondcnts 1, 3, z 5 and 6, Sri M.P.K. Adifl.a, learned Standing Counsel trr the 2nd responden[ and Sri P. Sl'rashi Kiran, learned cour .,:l for the 7rh respondent. 7 . \i On bchalf of Respondcnts, rcliance is rlaced on the judgments of the Hon'ble Snpreme Court irr AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd. u. Nagpur Metro Ra Corq:,tration Ltd..t and Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan. petroleum Corporation Ltd.2 and that of C?rlcutta High t ,rt in Dilip Jana u. United. Order and Supptg Coopero tive Societg Itd.(MAT No. 19r o1' 2O2 1). At the outsct, it is to be seen from th , Notification, thcre was a Note stating that eligible local / t . r rict Mahila Samakhya shall be given preference. Admittedly, ;r:titioner is a r AIR 20 t6 SC.li0i 'AtR 29,19 sc tilT a 7 local Scheduled Tribe woman and existing diet supplier. More over, she also quoted at Rs.72l - along with other tende rers. In vier.r, ol the same, this Court, without going into other aspects, is of the opinion Lhat petitioner qualifies the criteria specified in the tender Notifi cation.

8. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed directing the Sth respondent Additional Collector and Chairman to award conlract to pctitioner for supply of dict pursuant to Notificalion dated 12.O6.2025. No costs.

9. Consequen[15r, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed ' //TRUE COPY// sD/-T'sRlDEvl ISTANT REGIST ECTION OFFTCER To, ily Welfare 1. The PrinciPal Secretary to Govt Medical, Health and Department, State of Te lang ana Secretariat, HYderaba - 500 022 2. The Commissioner, Telangana State Va erabad - of Telangana, Badichowdi, Hvd The Distr ict Coordinator of HosP ital Services Nirmal District, Nirmal - 504105 The SuPe rintendent, District Headq uarters HosPital Nirm al - 504105 The Additional Cotlector and Chairm an of the Diet Committee, Nirmal District Nirmal - 504105 idhya Vidhana 500001 Parishad Government 3 4 E " Hoipli;iS;rviie!Nirmat District, Nirmat - 504105 6.TheChairman,DistrictDietManagingCoqrnitlge'C/o'DistrictCoordinatorof 7 ij;Jcd to Sri Sarasani Rinut nedov Advocate toPUCl B. rwo ccs to Gp r"|. fii"iilliil";iii-l"d. f;;itt weifare,Hifih court for the State s. 6nL"CC"to sri'A p.k. Aditva, SC forTWP^(pP^UC) ib.5;; cc i; 5;i C. snaini Kiian, Advocate (oPUC) 1'l .Two CD Copies of Telangana. [OUT] MBC/BSK ,% HIGH COURT DATIiD: 1011012025 'i [iI 296 ':- ,! j.._) .... \ , ::, ORDER WP.No 2t2696 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W'RIT PETTTION WIT IOUT COSTS \\