High Court · 2025

Petition undr-,r section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 1o vacate the interim orders in l.A.No. 1t2024 in WP.No.24557l2024dt: 18.09.2024 and dismiss the writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: M/S SWAPNA MADHURI AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW Counsel for the ResPondent No.5: -.- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE"I{AGTSH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. 24557 0F 2024 ORDER: Petitioner's case is that the 4rh respondent Principal, Government Medical College, Nalgonda issued tender notification dated 22.11.2022 for Integrated Hospital Management Services, which includes various facilities like sanitation, pest control and patient eare services, for three years with estimated cost of services per year Rs.Z2,S3,22g/_. It is stated, petitioner met all the tender requirements and after technical bid evaluatio n on 29.03.2023, the 4th respgndent opened the financial bid on 23.0g.2023 wherein they stood as L1 bidder. Despite, the 4rh respondent failed to issue any order awarding contract in their favour ald kept the same pending without any reason. While so, petitioner .states that on 22.09.2023, the 4th respondent issued fresh tender notihcation. euestioning the same, they frled Writ petition No. 27061 of 2023, where-ip this Courl set aside the fresh tender irotification through o.ie. dat.d 29.O9 .2023 and directed the 3.d rcsponclent- Director of Medical Education to monitor the tender bid of petitioner personally and 1 see whether petitioner is qualificd- ''in technical as u'el1 as financial bicl and in case, it is found qualified, the contract be awarded to p':titioner: it petitioirer is found' to be disqualified' a fresh tender notification be issued' It is complainecl that thereaJter, petitioner has not receive d any communication either from the 3'd respondent or the 4ft respondent' then' ttLey got issuedlegailroticeono3.oT.2o24forwhichareplyfromthe4th '2.O7 respohdent '2024 stating that there is rvas received on between turnover certified by l-he Ch artered 'mismatch Accountant and amounts mentioned in the worl< orders issued to petitioner for the past experience' and directed to place the matter before the District Collector for necessary orders The District Collector instructed to call for fresh tenders t'hrough e-tender by the 5th respondent" It is.stated' the 4th respondent appointed A.1 Facility and Property Management Pvt Limited without any tender process on temporary purpose' Further' they issued letter d,ated.20.o7.2024 3tating that the District collector instructed tc call for fresh tender; the same is against the order any condition in the of this CouLrt and without thcre being tencler document. alleges petil ioner' 3

2. Learned counsel forTedtioner Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa submits that the reason.cited by the 4th respondent that there is a mismatch between turnover certified by thq Chartered Accountant and amounts mentioned in the work orders issued to petitioner is totally incorrect. He submits that the committee consisting of District Collector, Additionai Collector, EE _ TSMSIDC and Principal, Government Medical College evaluated and verified the bid submitted tjy petitioner and declared them L1, as such, the question of the alleged mismatch does not arise and that the 4ih respondent is estopped from raising the said issue as they approved the tender document in technical bid leveI.

3. On 18.09.2024, this court issued interim order directing to maintain status quo until further orders.

4. In the counter hled by the 4th respondent, it is stated that during the tender process pursuant to notification dated o,n 22.71.2022, petitioner stood as L1 in technical bid and .work the then District Collector, Nalgonda endorsed to issue order. to rhem on 20.O4.2023. Meanwhile M/s Alpha Swayam Shakti Sangam, Nalgonda filed Writ petition No. 72472 of 2O)3 to declare the selection of the 6th respondent therein, petitioner -1 herein as outsourcing agency, as-jllqgal' The said Writ I'etition was closed, by order dated 28 'O4 '2023 ' recordin g the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader that tender notification dated 22 ll'2o22 itseif is going to be cancelledsodnandfreshnotificationisbeingissltedthert:in. I t is stated that on' submission of withdrawal letter tiit Alpha Swaryam Shakti Sangam, Nalgonda ott 2'2 'O7 2023' l1:e then District. Collector, Nal$onda bndorsed to open Iinancial biil .24.o7.2023.Accclrdirigly.anote anda*arderltendertoLlor has been pr-rt up to the then Districl Collector' Nalgonda for opening fina.ncial bid. Further, IHFMS tender financial bid was l)n t 3.O8.2O23 and no order has been passed' On the ofien€d eildofsementofthethenDistrictCollector,Nalgonda'matter wd-s informecl to the Direitbr of Medical Edu':ation and this Court. It is stated that as per the directions issued by this to go for a fresh tendei, a note iile was srubmitted to thd €iiurt then District Collector, Nalgonda for issue of re-terld_er on 21.Og.2023 and fresh tender notification was published' When the said notiltcation was questioned in Writ Petition No 27061 of 2023, this Court directed the Direclor of Medical Edu'''ation to 5 monitor personally and see whedEr- petitioner is qualified in Technical as well as financial ;bids and in case it. is found qualified, contract may be awarded to petitioner. If petitioner is found to be disqualified, a. fresh tender notirrcation be issued. Accoqdingly, the 3'a Respondenr took up the matter and found that there is no correlation between amount mentioned in the T\-rrnover Certihcate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the amount mentioned in the work orders and instructed that the matter may be taken to the 2"d respondent and obtain necessary orders for further action uid.e letter dated 04.O1.2024 and the same was informed to petitioner on O2.Og.2e24 in response to the contempt notice dated 27 .O7 .2O24. Thereafter, the 2"d respondent instructed that e_tenders may be called from the Government Medical College, Naigonda as was done earlier on 3O.O7 .2024 Further, a note f,rle was submitted to the 2nd respondent; stating that Alpha, Swayam Shakti Sangar4 has submitted a representation in which it is requested to finalize the 3.a tender. Accordingly, the 2,d respondent has endorsed that a decision was taken for calling fresh tenders lll* it oU o, 24.O7.2024. after con5idgling this Court,s Order dated 29.09.2023 and remarks of the 3.a respondent. In view of the 6 same, the present applicants c&n=' also particlpate in fresh tenders, if thel' are eligible' Fleard Ms Swapna Madhuri' learned Assistant

5. Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare lt perusal of the material on record disclosr:s that 6. pursuant to the tender notihcation dated 22 7l '2'022 ' petitioner stbod as Ll, howeVer, no orders awarding cotltract was issued in their lavou r. Subsequently' the 4'' resportdent when corrteiaplar erl lo issue lresh notification datecl '''2 09 2023' the seme was questioned by petitioner, wherein this Court' gave directions, a.s Stated supra. However, no Steps were taken by eiifref the 3"r or ihe 4th respondent' The reasorr given by the 4th rdspdiident is that there is a mismatch berween t Llfnovef cBrtiirred by, the Charteied Accountailt arid the amounts rhentibfiedinthewor*orders.Asrightlycont€Ildedbylearned cbun6el foi petitioner, wheir the Committee headed by the District Collector verified the bid of petitioner and declared him as qualified in technical bid, the question of alleged mislnatch of turnover and past ivork experiences does not arise' Further' it is to be observed that in Writ Pbtition No' 2706'1 of 2O23' this Court recor<Ied the admission made by learned Assistant I I 7 Government pleader that only.1tr?rerr a bidder gets qualified in technical bid, frnancial hid would be opened and financial bid in respect of petitioner alone was opened, on the instructions of the District Collector, Nalgonda and directed the Director of Medical Education, Telangana to monitor personally and see whether petitioner is qualified in the technical as wel as financial bids and in case, it is found qualified, the contract be awarded to petitioner and if not, a fresh tender notification be issued. But however, in the counter affidavit, the 4e respondent stated as if this Court directed issuance of fresh tender notification. Nowhere it is stated whether the 3.d respondent monitored the case of petitioner personally or not. Without complying with the direction of this Court and without considering the fact that petitioner was already declared L1 pursuant to the notification dated 22.17.2022, the 4th respondent is trying to call for fresh tender. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to be The Writ Petition is therefore, deserves to awarded the contract be allorved. 7 The Writ Petition is accorclingly, allowed. No costs. 8 8 Oonsequently, the miseellancous Applicati':ns' if any shal1 stand closed' I i To, //TRUE COPYII SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD taYi! GISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 J 4 5

0. 7. B. ecretariat, e the State TJ BS w HIGH GOURT DATED:2010212025 .J{ ArE $6 \t $$i I J d ,l] f DES >A\ ORDER WP.No.24557 of 2024 I I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ 10