The High Court · 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 stay the operation of the order passed in w.P.No.22696 ot 2O25 dated 1011012025 on the file of this Honourable court pending disposal of Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI RAVINDER REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S.SAWAM REDD'/, SENIOR COUNSEL SRI SANJEEV REDDY GILI-ELA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI M.P.K.AD|TY,A, SC FOR TWP Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 TO 7: SR! R.NAGARJIJNA REDDY, FOR SRI S RAHUL REDDY AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE IION'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHIIMI BHATTACIIARYA AND THE HON'BLE WSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KT'MAR WRIT APPEAL No.12l2 OF 2o25 Mr. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Couns€l counset appearing for the appetlan!. M!. S. Satyam Reddy, learned Serdor Couns€l counsel appearing for t}le respondent No. l. rePresent ng Mr' Sanjeev Reddy Gillela, Ieamed representing Mr. Sarasani Rahul Reddy, learn€d Mr. M. P. K. Aditya, tearned Standing Counsel appearing for tl.e respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4- TvvP. Mr. R. Nagarjuoa Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearint for the respondent Nos.5 to 7. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) 1 . The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated

10.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22696 of 2025 frled by the respondent No.1 herein. 2. Ttre prayer in the Writ Petition was for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Additional Collector and the Chairman to award the contract to the respondent No. l/writ petitioner. The dispute brought by the writ petitioner to the Corrrt relates to a Tender Notification dated 12.O6.20205 issued by the concerned authorities for supply of diet to the inpatients of Area Hospital and 2 Community Health Centres situated at Bhainsa, Narsapur and Mudhole. ) ) 2

3. We have heard learned Senior Couns:l appearing for the appellant (the respondent No.7 in W.p.No 22696 of 2O2Sl, Iearned counsel appearing for the Tendering Authority/the respondent No.7 as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. I /writ petitioner. 4. The Writ Petition was filed by the reslrondent No.l to challenge the contract awar ded to ttre appetlant/respondent No.7 for supply of diet in the aforementionerl Area Hospital ancl 2 Community Health Cc,ntres. The grounc of challenge to l.he award of tender was that the action of l:he concerned State Au.thorit5r violating the terms of the .lenrle,r Notifrcation, dated 12.06.2025. The Iearned Single Ju<16;e found the substance in the case made out by the writ petitioner and held inter alia and allowed the Writ petition ty directing the respondent No.S-Additional Collector and Charr:rran to award the contract to the respondent No. 1/writ lretitioner for supply of diet pursuant to the Notification. dat::<I 12.06.2C/25. The relief given to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was on the ground that the Notification contained Note: stating that the eligible local/ District Mahila Samakhya shall be given preference' and that the Tender Authority should have I 3 awarded the contract to the respondent No.l/writ petitioner since the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was a local Scheduled Tribe Women and had also quoted the same price i.e., Rs.72l- along with the other Tenderers.

5. The undisputed facts disclosed on behalf of the parties are as follows:

6. The Tender Notification, dated 12'06.2025 contains a Note stating tJlat tJle preference will be given to the eligible Iocal/ District Mahila Samakhya. The Writ Petitioner was an individual, who claimed to be a local Scheduled Tribe Women' However, it is undisputed that the respondent No' l/writ petitioner failed to produce any Certificate conhrming her etigrbility under the Note in the Tender Notilication, whereby preference was to be given to a local/ District Mahila Samakhya, but produced her Certifrcates confirming her status only at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. It is also undisputed that the writ petitioner was absent at the time of draw of lots and also it was intimated to the husband of the petitioner to attend the tender finalization process by the Convenor of the District Diet Managing Committee (DDMC), wherein he clearly stated ')- \ 4 that he was unable to attend and that he rrould accept the decision of the DDMC. These facts have lteen specifically stated in the counter of the Tender Authority. rvhich is part of the record.

7. It is also admitted that the appellant herr:in/respondent No.7 was awarded the Tender not tJrrough any unilateral decision or the exercise of discrelionary powr)r of the Tender Authority, but through a frrocess of drawirrg of lots. The drawing of lots was unclertaken since all the bidders bid for tlre same price i.e., Rs.Z2/_. 8. The above facts make it clear that ther:: was no scope for the writ petitioner to complain of any arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of power by the Tender l\uthority. The very fact that the award was made pursuant tc l.he drawing of lots would satis$, the test of transparency ancl bona ftdes on the part of the Tender Authority. Further, tlle ppievance of the respondent No. I /writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge of not being informed about the Tencter frnarization process also appears to be doubtful. There is n,r rebuttal on the part of the resporldent No.l/writ petitioner to the fact that the writ petitioner,s husband was infc,rmed till the 5 furali-ation process. The Court is also informed that the recording of the writ petitioner being the current suppter of diet is also incorrect, since the appellant continues till date. 9. However, what is more relevant is that there has been no violation of the Tender Notifi.cation, including the Note therein. The Note simply states that the preference will be given to the eligible local/ Disbict Mahila Samakhya. As stated above, the writ petitioner did not produce any \ \ Certificate to show that she is etigible under the said Note.

10. It is a well settled that a Writ Court shall not interfere with the decision of the Tender Authority unless the decision is found to be coloured by extraneous considerations. The t I Courts have consistently held that the Tender Authorit5r is the best person to decide the eligible Tenderer_or the person best suited for the job. In the present case, the strictures to be applied on the Writ Court would apply to the facts of the present case, since the Court has not found any arbitrary or illegal action on the part of the Tender Authority in selecting the appellant/respondent No. 7. 6

11. We accordingly, frnd merit in the Writ Appeal. The impugned order, dated lO: IO.2O2S is ser aside and W.A.No. 1212 ol 2025 is accordingly allowecl and disposed of. All connected applications are dispbsecl ot No order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/.K.SAILESHI INT REGISTRAR Yo &CTION OFFICER -7 To

1. The Principalsecretary.to Govt., Medical Health and Fanrily Welfare ^ lepqtment, Secrerari6t, Hyder{bad, sfi"'6ii"irngrn, soo o22. 2. The commissioner- retang-ana sii-e t;ilhy; v-lot a"ni ;n-rriiid-',tovemment I ^ gf r{enp."na, Badibhowdi:Hya;r;6;dEboirri. - r r. r ne urstnct coordinat_qr of Hospitar Services, Nirmar Dir;tr.ict, Nirmar 504105. ' 1 I!," Superintendent, oistrici liiJoq*riiiii-r-rblii[t, Nirrnat s04105. 5. The Additionar corector and chairil;n';i'idDI;ib;; tt*e-e] i.ii#ar oistrict, 6' The chairman, District Di9lrylalagllg committee, c/o tlisttrict coordinator of _ Hospital, Services, Nirmal Districi]il"-r; ;6;,fi; 7. one CC to SRt SANJEEV REDDV cilttiA,'fi;;cate opUCl 9. 9n" cc to SRt S.RAHU_L.RE-Dry Aoi,oL-i"toHuct 9. 9n" CC to SRt M.p.K.A_DtwAjc.io*iiir,iiopuct 10.Two ccs to Gp FoR MFptcAL;EALiH'& rir,ll"Hisn court forthe State of . . Telan-g_ana, at Hyderabad. fOrt - 1 1 . Two CD Copies Nirmal 504105. - I PSK. LS HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 J JUDGMENT WA.No.1212 of 2025 ( t rHE S14 14: ( (' ). -d= 22 uv 2p5 .(r.',tTCu€9 * ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS alp,r- I