IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.754 OF 2022
Sri Vinayaka Agencies, Rep., by its
Proprietor, D.No.19-10-25, New
Indira Nagar, Air Bypass Road,
Tirupati, Chittoor District-517 501.
..Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Women Development & Child
Welfare Department, Secretariat
at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur
District, and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. V. Venugopala Rao, Sr.counsel on behalf of Mr. E. Sambasiva Pratap.
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP for Women Dev. & Child Welfare.
Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, Sr. counsel on behalf of Mr. Ch.
Madhava Raman.
ORAL JUDGMENT Dt:11.10.2022 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.22494 of 2021 filed HCJ & DVSSS, J 2 W.A.No.754 of 2022 by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) questioning the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in disqualifying the petitioner during prequalification bid/technical bid proceedings vide online copy of Tender dated 29.09.2021 and in not allowing the petitioner to participate in financial bid/reverse tender process, in pursuance of tender notification vide NIT No.554/A1/2021, dated 14.09.2021 for supply of YSR SP Nutrition Kits to Anganvadi Centres under YSR Sampoorna Poshana in Chittoor District for a period of one year, and seeking to set aside the same while directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to reconsider the financial/reverse tender process, duly qualifying the petitioner in Pre-qualification bid/technical bid and to finalize the tender process so as to award contract in favour of successful bidder or alternatively, to direct to issue fresh tender notification for the same.
2. It is a common ground that after the impugned order dismissing the writ petition has been rendered by the learned single Judge on 15.09.2022, the tender process has come to an end and work order has been allotted to respondent No.5, who is L1 bidder, and he has already commenced supply of items for which tenders were issued. It is to be seen that the petitioner has not called in question the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in declaring respondent No.5 to be technically HCJ & DVSSS, J 3 W.A.No.754 of 2022 qualified. Such arguments are raised for the first time in this writ appeal without there being any foundation in the writ affidavit.
3. In such circumstances, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that respondent No.5 was also not qualified, in the same manner in which the petitioner has been disqualified, cannot be examined for the first time in this writ appeal. If respondent No.5 is also declared to be disqualified as agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant now, the consequence would be to set aside the work order issued in favour of respondent No.5, for which there is no prayer in the writ petition.
4. For all the above reasons, this writ appeal has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time and due to subsequent events.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of as infructuous reserving liberty in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner to file a fresh writ petition seeking the relief as can be claimed at this stage of the proceedings. If such writ petition is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits. No order as to costs. All the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J Nn HCJ & DVSSS, J 4 W.A.No.754 of 2022 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.754 OF 2022 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) Dt:11.10.2022 Nn