High Court · 2025

petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, A. declaring the proceedings of the 5th Respondent bearing Rc.No.A1/HDS/DIET/SDEH/202411645 dated 25-09-2024as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitution al, null and void, and consequently, set aside the same B. declaring the tender Notification issued by the 5th Respondent vide Rc.No.Al/HDS/DIET/SDEH/2O24t1645 dated 25to9l2024for supply of Diet in the 4th Respondent hospital for the years 2024-26 as contrary to due process of law and also violative of G.o.Ms.No.325 dated 0111112021 , issued by thelst Respondent, inspite of the Petitioner being the contractor for the years 2022-24 and having satisfactory performance, as illegal, arbitrary and void-ab-initio and violative of due process of law and violative of Articles 14,21 of the Constitutional of lndia, besides, being in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 2 and 5 to consider the representation of the Petitioner afresh and continue the petitioner,s services lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to stay all further action of the Respondents pursuant to the tender notification bearing Rc.No.A'1/HDS/DIET/SDEH/20241i645 dated 25-09-2024issued by the Respondent No.5 allegedly representing Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition pending disposal of the above writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Family Welfare Department, sec-retariat, Hvderabad 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Health, Medical and 2. District Diet Management committee, Rep. by the commissioner. Deoartment of Health, Medical and Family Welfare. Stati: of Telangana DMHS bampus, Sultan bazar, Koti, Hyderabaa - SOOOSS 3 The Commis_sloner, Health Medical and Family Welfare. State of Telanqana, . Hyderabad. DMHS Campus, Suttan bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 500095 4 The S^uperintendent, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, tViehdipatnam Rd, Ex Service Men Colony, Humayun Ndgar, Hydeiabad, Tetangana 5OOOZg ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 2 Yadava Re!gy: S/o.Linga Reddy, Aged about 55 years. Occ. Diet Contractor, R/o.H.No.1-1i-22. Sanihi Ndgar. Natgonda - 5Oe OOZ Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Mehdipatnam Rd, Ex Service Men Colony, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 5OOO2g. Rep. by its president. ' ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER .,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 15'l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders in lA.No.1/2024 dated:04.10.2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition ln WP.No.2772612024, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SANJEEV REDDY GILLELA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER i SI(, J WP No.27726 oJ 2024 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.27726 OF 2o24 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is fiied questioning the Tender Notilrcation RC.No. No.A1lHDS/DIET/SDEHl2024 11645 dated 25.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.5 for supply of Diet in the respondent No.4-Hospital as contrary to due process of law and also rn violative of G.O.Ms.No.325, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department, dated 01.11.2021 , issued by the respondent No.1 in spite of the petitionel being the existing Contractor for the years 2022-24 and having satisfactory performance and sought a dircction to set aside the impugned tender notification.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleder for Medical and Health appearing for the respondents ald perused the record. I 2 sr, J WP No.27726 of 2O24

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in response to the Tender Notification issued by the respondent No.2 for supply of Diet to the respondent No.4-Hospital for the years 2O2O-22 and 2022-24, the petitioner participated in the said tender and became successful bidder for both the said periods. The respondent No.5, who is also the Convener of the Diet Managing Committee of the respondent No.4-Hospital, stated that the diet being provided by the petitioner 1S satisfactory from I 1.O2.2O22 t1ll 2.O7 .2024.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per clasue 11 (c) of the G.O.Ms.No.325 Hea,lth, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department, dated OL.71.2021 specifies that the Diet Contract period is extendeabale for one more year if the District Diet Management Committee is satisfied with the service of the Diet Contractor. The petitioner 3 sr, J wP No.27726 oJ 2024 addressed a letter to the respondent No.5 on O6.Q8.2O24 requesting to extend the contract period for one more yea,r to serve the diet to the in-patients and duty doctors. In response thereto, the respondent No.5 issued a proceedings vide letter bearing LRc.No.Al/HDS/SDEH 12024 / 1645 dated 28.08.2024 stating that as per Committee Report the performance of the petitioner needs to be improved and recommended to go for a fresh tender ald the petitioner was also given liberty to reapply for new contract. If the performance of the petitioner 1S lacking, then there is no question of inviting him again to participate in the new contract and therefore the said proceeding is arbitrary as no complaints or notice or any sort communication either lrom the respondent No.4 or Diet Management Committee or the respondent No.5 has been given to the petitioner till date. 4 sr, J wP No.27726 oJ 2024

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that respondent No'5 called for fresh tenders by rejecting request of the petitioner for extension of the tender, which is contrary to Clause-9 and 11 (c) of.G'O'Ms'No'325' Health' Medical and Family Welfare (M 1) Department' dated Ol.lL.2021.. The respond'ent No'S issued E-Tender Notilrcation Rc.No. A 1 / HD S / DIET/ SDEH I 2024 I 1645 dated 25.09 .2024 and' the said Notification was issued without considering the representation of the petitioner for extension of tender period and therefore requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned tender Notification dated 25'09'2O24 issued by the respondent No.5.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare' basing on the counter filed by the respondent No'5 would submit agreement of Diet Contract period was that as the .) sx, J wP No.27726 of 2024 completed on L4.O9.2O24, tlne petitioner, who is the existing Diet Contractor, submitted a representation dated 06.O8.2024 for extension of existing Diet Contractor for one more year as per G.O.Ms.No.325, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department, dated 01.11.2021. As per the instructions of the Chairman, District Diet Management Committee, the Hospital Diet Management Committee met on 28.O8.2024 vide Rc.No.A1lHDS/Diet/SDtrHl2024 11645 and submitted a report stating that the Diet is not satisfactory nor the petitioner is maintaining quantity and quzrlity specihcally with respect to patients u,here he is putting more salt in the diet and in view of the same decided not to extend the Diet Contractor for further period of one year and accordingly called for fresh tenders vide Notihcation Rc.No.A1lHDS/DIET/SDEHIZO24/1645, dated 05.O9.2024. As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of respondent No.4-Hospita_l, a letter 6 sx, J WP No,27726 oJ 2024 Rc.No.A1/HDS/DIET/SDEHi 2024 I 1.645 I 48o dated Og.O9.2O24 was served to the petitioner stating that in view of ongoing tender process, the existing Diet contract period, was extended for a few days till finalization of new diet tender. During the said period Iifteen (15) tender documents were sold including the petitioner. Since no contractor submitted sealed tenders documents tilt the last date, re-tender notif-rcation was issued on 25.09'2024 and the last date of submission of document was on 07'lO'2O24 and opening of Technical Bid was on O8'|O'2O24 and Financial Bid was on 09.lO.2024'

7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that in the re-tender Notification, 13 applications were sold, in which the petitioner has also participated in the tender process' As per the schedule' the technical bid was opened on 08'lO'2O24 in the premises of the Commissioner of Health & Famiiy Welfare/Chairman, District DDMC, Hyderabad in the 7 sr, J wP No.27726 oJ 2024 presence of all the tenderers, in which the petitioner has been qualified for financial bid along with other Nine tenderers, and two tenderers disqualified. The respondent No.4 acted as per the G,O and Rules ol the Tender process and therefore all the allegations made by the petitioner are baseless and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was having the Diet Supply Contract with the respondent No.2 and 5 for supply of food to the respondent No.4_Hospitai up to 14.O9.2024. Now, the petitioner is questioning the impugned Tender Norification Rc.No.A1/HDS/DIET/ SDEH|2O24 / t64S dated 25.09 .2024 for supply of Diet to the respondent No.4 Hospital on the ground that as per Clause No.1l (C) of G.O.Ms.No.325, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 01 . 1 I .201 1, the respondent authorities have to extend the tender for further period of one year. \ I 8 sr(, J wP No.27726 oJ 2024 g. The main contention of the leaned Counsel for petitioner is that as per Clause No' 11 (C) of G.O.Ms.No.325, Health, Medicat and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 01'11'2011, the respondent authorities have to extend the tender for further period of one year, but without extending the same' the respondents have issued impugned Notification 1n spite of the representation of the petitioner dated 06.O8.2O24 to the respondent No 5 for extension of the contract period for one more Year'

10. The Clause 11 (c) of G'O'Ms'No'325' Health' Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department' dated O 1. 1 1.201 1 reads as follows: GENERAL CONDITONS 1 1 . The following terms and conditions shall be followed in respect of Diet Contract' a) xlo(xx b) c) The Diet contract period wili be fot 2 years and extendable for one year if District Diet Management 9 sK, ., WP No.27726 oJ 2024 Committee( DDMC), satisfied with the service of the Diet Contractor. Under any circumstances, fresh tenders must be called for the 4th year, well in advance.

11. The Clause 11 (c) of G.O.Ms.No.32S, Health, Medical ald Family Welfare (M1) Department, dated 0 i. 1 1.20 1 1 clearly shows that the diet contract period will be extendable for one year, if District Diet Management Committee (DDMC) satished with the service of the Diet Contractor. In the inslalt case, the District Diet Management Committee basing on report dated 28.O8.2024 in Rc.No.A1lHDS/Diet/SDEH/ 2024/1645 submitted by the Hospital Diet Committee decided not to extend the contract period for one more year on the ground that the Diet being supplied by the petitioner is not satisfactory nor he is maintaining quantity and quality with respect to the patients where he is putting more salt in the diet. In view of the same, the District Diet Management Committee have issued impugned Notihcation and the respondent I 10 sr(' J WP No.27726 oI 2024 authorities have also informed the petitioner to participate in the tender process along with other tenderers.

12. In view of the above circumstances the impugned Tender Notification Rc'No'A1/HDS/DIET/SDEH I 2024 I 1645 Dated 25 'Og '2025 issued bv the respondent No.S is in consonance with the G.O.Ms.Nos.325, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 01'll'2o11 and there is no violation in issuance of impugned Tender Notification' Moreover, as per the counter hled by the respondents' the petitioner has also participated' in the tender process and he has qualified for Financial Bid along with nine other tenderers' In view the interim orders passed by this Court on O4'|O'2O24 the respondent- authorities have not finalized the tenders' The petitioner has no legal right to stall the tender process and there is no absolute right to extend the contract 11 sK, J wP No.27726 oJ 2024 period for one year. Further, the respondent No.4 issued letter in Rc.No.A1lHDS/DIET/SDEH/ 2024/1645/48O dated 09.09.2024 extending the Diet contract period to the petitioner till the llnalization of the new tender. There are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed

13. In view of the above finding, this Writ Petition is dismissed by directing the respondent authorities to proceed further 1n the Tender process issued vide Notilrcation Rc.No.A i / HD S / DItrT/ SDEH / 2024 I 1645, dated 25.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.5. No order as to costs.

14. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG GISTRAR OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. SANJEEV REDDY GILLELA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FAMILY WELFARE,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies M B B I t HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 riF- Sit I l-- 3zs;uiztzs o )zl )zI ct!i .:. ' // :. ..' t' ::!i>' ORDER + WP.No.27726 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS h / g / /t ,