T. Venkateswarlu v. M/s S.S. Consultancy

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 order of the learned Judge passed in WP.No.1885412,)?-3 daled 14.11.2025, pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, rep., rslll S.V.RAMANA counser for the Respondent No.1 , :IJ:M,Ii.:U.,?otil', -ep., sr.counser c o u n s e I ro r t h e Re s po n d e n r N o. 2 to 4 # ?,Jffi $i.r^lll :,lrri[_r, Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Gp FOR AGRICULTUF E The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACIIARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1335 OF 2O2S DATEI 05.12.2O25 Betwee n: T.Venkateswarlu AND .....Appellant M/s-S.S. Consultancy, rep. by its Proprietor and five Othcrs . ... .Re sp ondents Mr Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. Avrnash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. K.V. Vani, learned counsel lor the respondcnl No. 1. Mr. Nagarjuna Redd1., Iearned Assistant Governmcnt Plcader lor Medical and Healtl.r, represen t in g respon,lcnt No.2. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'blc Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 1.1.1L2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by allowing Writ Petition No.18854 of 2023 filed by the respondent No.l herein cancelling the Contract for Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital awarded to the appellant herein. \ 2 MB,J & GPK,J Wa 1335_2025

2. The appeliant herein was the respondenl. No.6 in the Writ Petition. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 an<l rl herein are the State re spondcnts. The rcspondent No.5 is t [-r: Superintendent, Sarojini l)evi Flve Hospital, Mehdipatnarrr. Hyd612$2d, who issued the e-tendcr Notification dated 15.O6.i1(t222 for providing Integrated Hospital Facility Management Se r-rices at the said hospital, as stated above.

3. The appcllant is aggrieved by the order of cancellation of the Work Contract. Learned Senior CounseJ appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has already worked in terms of the atarded contract from June, 2023. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Contract is lrre to end in June,

2026. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant/ respor-rdent No.6 'r'as not technically qualified in terms of the mandatory conditrorrsr stipulated in the Tender documcnts and that the licence for in s,:cticides issued to the appellant as vt,ell as the writ petitioner \ rar; lne and the same, i.e., for Commercial Pest Control Operations. Senior Counsel relies on the relevant clause in the tender doc,rment i.e., Clause No.4.2.3(i) to urge that the appellant satisfred the relevant clause in the Tender and was consequently awardecl the work in June,

2023. 3 MB,J & GPK,J Wa_ 133 5_2025

4. Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/u'rit petitioner submits that the licence issued to the appellant was inconsisten t rvith the relevant Tender document since the licence u'as only for the purpose of stocking insecticides as opposed to Commerciai Pest Control Operations lvhich was the intent of the relevant Tender condition.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health supports the case of the appellant. The respondent No.5/Tcndering Authority is not represented.

6. The primary issue u,hich the learned Single Judge heard and adjudicated u,as u,hether the appellant/respondent No.6 lr'as qualified in terms of the mandatory conditions stipulated under the Tender document. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of the writ petitioner and held that the appellant rvas not qualihed for the work. 7 . The e-Tender document issued by the Government of Telangana/ Director of Medical Education was in relation to provide integrated Hospital Faciiity Management Services in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. The relevant clause is under Section-IV "Eligibility Criteria". Clause I 4 MB,J & GPK,J Wa_ 1335-2O25

4.2.3 provides for "Other Valid Supportrr c Documents" for shor,,,ing the eligibility for technical qualifications. Clause 4'2'3 (i) states t he follorving: "4.2.3 (i)' Commercial pcsticide appl crtor license obtained from the controlling Authority to carry out the business or MOU (as per Annexure-S) u itlr having such license. "

8. The above clause makes it clear that the document required in support of technica-l quali{icatr on is "Commercial Pesticicle Appllcator License" as per Annexure-ll. Annexure-5 is a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to i re erecuted on a Non juclicial Stamp paper betu'een the partres. The determining factor which u'ould be evident from Clar-rse 4 2.3(i) for the purpose of eligibilitl' of the bidder is '.\'rplicator License'' Rule l0l3A) of '1'he Insecticides Ruies, 197 1, ('1971 Rules') provides, inter alia, that any person u'ho derires to undertake pest control operations, u'ith the use of certa n chemicals, sha1l apply for licence in Form VI-A with the requisite fee for each place of operation. Rule 10(4) of the 1971 Rules provides for a licence to sel1, stock or exhibit for sale or <lis iribute insecticides subject to the conditions mentioned under the said Rule'

9. From a comparison of Rule 10 (3A) ard Ruie 10 (4) of the 1971 Rules. lt is evident that both the Rttlers are distinct from 5 MB,J & GPK,J Wa_ 133 5-202 5 each other and operate for different purposes. Rule 1O(3A) is relevant for Pest Control Operators while Rule 10(4) is for Selling, Stocking or Exhibiting for Sale or Distributing Insecticides.

10. Notably, the licence obtained by the appellant/respondent No.6 was under Rule l0( ) of the 197 I Rules w,hich is for sale, stock or distribute insecticides. This wouid be evident from paragraph 4 of the licence. On the other hand, the licence obtained by the rvrit petitioner s,as under Rule 10(3A) and makes it clear in paragraph 4 thereof that the licence is for "Commercial Pest Control Operations". The relevant Rule is clearly stated in the licence itself.

11. Apart from the licences issued to the parties, a Memo dated 2l .O4.2022 issued by the ofhce of the Commissioner of Agriculture, states in paragraphs 1 and 3 thereof that the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture has notihed the Licensing Offrcer to issue Licences to manufacture Insecticides and Commercial Pest Control Operators dealing with restricted pesticides specifically mentioned in Rule 10(3A) of the 1971 Rules which is for fumigation related operation with notifred insecticides. The response given by the Department of Agriculture on 15.O6.2O23 to a query raised in this respect 6 MB,J & GPK,J Wa 1335 2O25 further clarifies that pest control operations ir Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Mehdipatnam and Government Medical College, Nagarkurnool is as per Rule 1O(3A)

12. Therefore, the clear indication from Cle t.se .1.2.3(i), rvhich mentions "Appllcator Licence", ',r.ouid point lo a licence under Rule 1O(3,A.) of the 197 1 Rules and 4q! a lice nr:c under Rule 1O(4) of the said Ru1es. This vieu, u,ould be fcrrtifl,:cl from the Tender document itseif which specifrcallv mentions in Ciausc 6.2.4 - turn -nentions under "Pest Control Plan" which in Clause 6.'2.4 (B) "Commercial Pesticide AppLcator Certihcates or Licenses". Clause 6.2.4 (BJ is consistent witlr Clause 4.2.3(i) of the Tender document in terms of requiring tl- c cligible bidder to have a Commercial Pesticide "Applicator" Liceircc,

13. Moreover, the licence obtained by the t'rit petitioner under Rule 10(3A,) of the 1971 Rules clearly states i r paragraph 2 that the licence is for carrying out Commerc.al Pest Control Operations, whereas the licence obtained l>y the appellant mentions that the licence is for manufacture/ sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides. We ,r1so notice that the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge states in paragraph 3 that the appellant subrnitted a valid ! : l t, t, I i I Il i t i ! l I I t I ! l L t i t I I 7 MB,J & GPK,J Wa- 1335_2025 pest control applicator licence issued under Rule 10(3A) of the 1971 Rules, whereas the licence disclosed before the Court was under Ruie 1 0(4) . Therefore, it is undisputed that the iicence obtained by the appellant uras not in conformity w.ith the Tender conditions. 14 We hence agree t.ith the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the action of the District Collector and the Superintendent of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital in awarding the work to the appellant, despite the appellant not fulhlling the mandatory technical condition, r.vas arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the Tender i 5. Although learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the Writ petition was hled after considerable delay, we find the saicl submission contrary to the record. The writ petitioner wrote to the District collector on 18.O7.2022 objecting to the tlehciencies in awarding the work to the bidders in question, including the appellant. The District Collector however did not pay heed to the writ petitioner,s objection and proceeded to award the work to the appellalt in Jluine,2023. \ 8 MB,J & GPK,J Wa 1335-2025

16. Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has raised several other grounds for cancelling the Tender ;rnd the decision to award the Tender to the appellant Senior oounsel has relied on the appellant's violating Clauses 1'2 1 ar C' 4 2 3(n) of the Tender document with regard to requir-c'cl General past experience and the fact that the Tendering Arrthorir-v proceeded to club different u'orks in order to award t'I- c contract to the appellant. We however deem it fit only to de:rl rvith the violation of Clause 4.2.3 of the Tender document in t'-r:ns of the lack of technical qualihcation of the appellant for 1re ing au'arded the tender.

17. Moreover, the very fact that the appcllarrt has continued rvith the u,ork for 2Yz yeats would not cure tl-ie zLrbir r-ar]' action on the part of the respondents/Tendering Auth o ^ity' An illegality cannot be permitted to be continued' once the said action is brought to the notice of the Court'

18. ln Bakshi Secuitg an.d Personnel Sieruices (P) Ltd' u' Deukishan Computed (P) Ltd} cited on behall rl-the appellant' the Supreme Court classifred requirements in iL tender notice into two categories ald those which lay down the essential conditions I (zoro) s scc qae I I I i ! 't i : : i i I I i : 9 MB,J & GPK,J Wa 1335 2025 of eligibility and the others rvhich are ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. - Titagarh Wagons Ltd U Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.2 , the Supreme Court further held that administrative decisions must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principles of reasonableness but aiso must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides

19. In the present case, the action of the Tendering Authonty in awarding, the work to the appellant can certainly be classihed as mala fide since it is clearly contrarv to the terms of the Tender document. Bokshi Secuity a.nd Personnel Seruices (P) Ltd. (supra) in fact assists the writ petitioner since Clause a.2.3(1) of the Tender document is an essential condition of the Tender since the Tender itseif was for provicling Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services requiring the bidder to possess appropriate licence which was essential to the work contemplated in the Tender.

20. The above reasons persuade us to agree and accept the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in aliowing the Writ ' lzottl t scc qaa I MB,.] & GPK,J Wa 1335 2025 Petition and directing the concerned authorities ..o reconsider the bids in accordance '"vith the tender conditior s and award the contract to t1-re u,rit petitioner only if tl-rc rr rit petitioner is otheru,ise found to be eligible of the requirenre I s. We hcnce do not find ar-rv merit in the present Writ Appeal.

21. W.A.No.1335 of 2025, along ri'ith a1: connected applications, is accordingiy dismissed. Theri: shafi be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// \ One CC to SRI S.V.RAMANA, Advocate. [OPUCI One CC to Mrs.K.V.VANl, Advocate. IOPUCI \ SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL QEPUTY REGISTRAR i r SEGTION oFFICER Two CCs to GP for ft/edical, Health and Family Welfare t)epar1ment,, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Agriculture, High Court for the Statr, of Te angana at Hyderabad. [OUT] To,

2. J. 4 Two CD Copies. BSK , HE1 S TA I{ a-) {10 0 C E ? 025 c( }'z o ,.:D r{ \G,.J ,,1 :. :)- a HIGH COURT MB,J & GPK,J DATED:0511212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1335 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 1P