Telangana High Court
M/S. Shivenari Canteen Services vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2023
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. 10182 of 2023
Between:
M/s Shivenari Canteen Services
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.04.2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
WP_10182_2023
2 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 10182 of 2023
% 25.04.2023
Between:
# M/s Shivenari Canteen Services
..... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana and others
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Senior Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Dammalapati Srinivas
^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P for Medical Health and
Family Welfare
? Cases Referred:
1. AIR 1990 SC 1984
2. JT 2003 (Supp.II) SC 354
3. AIR 1978 SC 597
4. (1978) 1 SCC 405
5. (1968) 1 All ER 694 (HL)
WP_10182_2023
3 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 10182 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri Dammalapati Srivivas, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and
Family Welfare appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in
issuing cancellation proceedings vide Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026,
dated 01.042023 and subsequent tender notification
No.HDS/GHS/2023/2016, dated 01.04.2023 issued by the 3rd
respondent without following any procedure contemplated
under law as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural
justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and also contrary to the orders dated 29.08.2022 passed in
W.A.No.554 of 2022 and consequently set aside the
cancellation proceedings in Rc.No.GHS/2023/2016, dated
01.04.2023 and subsequent Tender Notification
HDS/GHS/2023/1016, dated 01.04.2023.
WP_10182_2023
4 SN,J
3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner firm herein, is registered under the
Partnership Act, 1932 under the name and style of
M/s.Shivenari Canteen Services and is engaged in the
business of diet contract, supply of food, etc.
b) The petitioner firm has been supplying diet in various
hospitals in the State of Telangana and has good reputation in
providing the patient diets in hospitals for more than a period
of 10 years.
c) The petitioner firm having participated in the
competitive bidding process for supply of diet to the Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad, was awarded the letter of award of
contract on 27.08.2022 by the 5th respondent vide
proceedings Rc.No.HDS/GHS/2022/964.
d) The existing contractor filed W.P.No.20391 of 2022
challenging the termination order and the same was
dismissed on 01.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the said
contractor preferred W.A.No.554 of 2022 and the same was
disposed of on 29.08.2022 with a direction to resolve the
WP_10182_2023
5 SN,J
disputes between the parties as per Article 11(b) of the
Agreement through best efforts by mutual discussions
amicably and in the event that the parties do not find any
acceptable solution within 30 days, they shall appeal to the
State Level Committee and the decision shall be final and
binding on both parties and that till the period of 30 days,
status quo as on date i.e. on 29.08.2022 as regard to supply
of diet shall be continued. The State Level Committee has not
concluded the dispute within the stipulated time as directed
by the Court.
e) The 5th respondent has called for explanation from the
petitioner vide Rc.No.3552/HDS/GHS/2022-2023/604, dated
27.02.2023 with regard to the EMD/Security Deposit stating
that it was drawn by the 3rd party. The petitioner submitted
detailed explanation on 04.03.2023 stating that, EMD was
submitted in the right way and there was no condition
regarding drawl of DD from a particular person. The
petitioner requested either to adjust money or draw the DD as
a hand loan. As such Mr Suresh Babu, had drawn the Demand
Draft and given to the petitioner and the amount was repaid
to the 5th respondent on 16.11.2022.
WP_10182_2023
6 SN,J
f) The petitioner had been making repeated oral requests
to both the 2nd and 5th respondents to handover the kitchen
premises as per the award of contract dated 27.08.2020 but
the respondent has not taken any action. It had been orally
intimated to the petitioner that the kitchen premises for diet
supply would only be handed over, after concluding the
dispute resolution between the parties and the previous
contractor as directed by the court vide its order in WA. No.
554 of 2022.
g) The 5th respondent vide proceedings in
Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026 dated 01.04.2023 cancelled the diet
tender which was awarded to the petitioner for supply of diet
to the in-patient and duty doctors in the 5th respondent
hospital.
h) The 5th respondent has referred to Minutes of State
Level Diet Management Committee Meeting held on
29.03.2023. However, the State Level Diet Management
Committee does not have the jurisdiction to terminate a
Letter of award. Further, the 3rd respondent had issued a
fresh tender notification No.HDS/GHS/2023/1016 dated
WP_10182_2023
7 SN,J
01.04.2023 calling for bids, for supply of diet to the 5th
respondent hospital, which is illegal. Hence this Writ Petition.
4. The counter affidavit of the respondents, in brief,
is as follows:
a) The existing contractor, M/s. Shasra, had not handed
over the charge of kitchen to the petitioner on the plea that
he had filed a WA No. 554 of 2022 and is awaiting for orders.
b) The Order of the court in WA No. 554 of 2022, directed
that, disputes between the parties as per Article 11(b) of the
Agreement shall be settled through best efforts by mutual
discussions amicably.
c) Abiding the order of the court, the DDMC convened a
meeting on 19.09.2022 and heard the plea of the Mrs.
Deepika, to continue the Diet Contract till the completion of
tenure with the revised rates but both the parties had not
come to a mutual stand and the matter has been referred to
State Level Diet Management Committee on 20.09.2022.
d) The State Level Diet Management Committee had
convened a meeting on 03.11.2022 with Mrs. Deepika, during
WP_10182_2023
8 SN,J
which, it was pointed out that petitioner submitted the DD
(Demand Draft) drawn by the Koduri Suresh Babu, who is
involved in misappropriation while working as Diet Contractor
in Niloufer Hospital and the Petitioner did in fact submit the
Demand Draft (DD) of Rs. 3 (Three) Lakhs drawn by Sri
Koduri Suresh Babu.
e) Mr. Koduri Suresh Babu has also participated in the Diet
Tenders but was un-successful. The State Level Diet
Management Committee after verification of the records, had
directed the Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital to call for
explanation from the petitioner with regards to DD drawn in
the name of Sri Koduri Suresh Babu but the explanation
submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory to State Level
Diet Management Committee and strong basis was made that
both the parties colluded.
f) The petitioner was given a official letter asking the
petitioner to taken the charge of the kitchen premises
immediately but the petitioner failed to do so. In the
meanwhile, M/s. Sahasra filed WA No. 554 of 2022 and got
orders, directing to maintain status quo.
WP_10182_2023
9 SN,J
g) The State Level Diet Management Committee, after a
detailed examination of all the issues resolved to cancel the
Letter of Award & contract, awarded to the Petitioner and
hence fresh tender & notification were issued by State Level
Diet Management Committee on 01.04.2023. Hence, the said
Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be setaside.
5. PERUSED THE RECORD
I) The judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed in
W.A.No.554 of 2022, in particular, paras 14 and 15 read
as under:
"14. Having regard to the above, we relegate the
parties to dispute resolution to be carried out in terms
of Article 11(b) of the Contract Agreement dated
21.01.2022, which shall be carried out between
respondent No.3 and the appellant and concluded within
a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. Till the period of thirty days, status
quo as on today as regards supply of diet to
respondent No.4 shall be continued.
15. Order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.20391 of 2022 stands modified
accordingly."
WP_10182_2023
10 SN,J
II) The proceedings dated 27.02.2023 vide
Rc.No.3552/HDS/GHS/2022-23/604, of the
Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad reads
as under:
"In the light of the instructions contained in the order
passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.554 of 2022,
dated 29.08.2022 and also based on the material
papers and evidences adduced before the State
Committee, it is noticed that, the security deposit
submitted by M/s Shivenari Canteen Services to
participate in the diet tender dated 16.08.2022 was
drawn by Sri Koduri Suresh Babu who is unsuccessful
bidder for the same tender and also accused in FIR
98/2021 in Niloufer Diet misappropriation case.
Hence, M/s Shivaneri Canteen Services
called upon to give an explanation about his
connection with Sri Koduri Suresh Babu who has
paid his security deposit and he is under
examination for his alleged misappropriation in
Niloufer Hospital.
His explanation should reach in this office
within (3) days from the date of receipt; failing
which, further action will be initiated by
presuming that, M/s Shivenari Canteen Services
has accepted the lapses pointed out by us to be
correct and have no explanations to offer in that
event the undersigned will be at liberty to take
WP_10182_2023
11 SN,J
appropriate action without further reference to
M/s Shivenari Canteen Services."
III) The order impugned dated 01.04.2023,
Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026, of the Superintendent, Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad i.e. the 5th respondent, reads as
under:
"As per the State Level Committee Minutes of
Meeting M/s Shivnari Canteen Services is hereby
informed that the State Level Diet Management
Committee has resolved to cancel the award of
diet contract to M/s Shivenari Canteen Services
and to go for fresh tenders.
In view of the above, the award of Diet
Contract to M/s Shivenari Canteen Services is
herewith cancelled.
IV) Letter of Award of Contract issued in favour of the
petitioner, dated 27.08.2022 reads as under:
"1. We are happy to inform that after due process
of the tenders received for the captioned subject
matter, you have been selected for award of the
contract subject to the following conditions:
a) You have to return the duplicate copy of this
letter duly consenting to the terms and conditions
herein by affixing your signature with seal not
later than three (three days) from the date of
WP_10182_2023
12 SN,J
receipt of this letter. Along with the Demand
Draft for an amount equivalent to the amount
prescribed in the Tender Document, the Caution
Deposit.
b) You have to execute the Contract
Agreement in two sets within 10(ten) days
from the date of receipt of this letter at your
cost and expense.
2. The Contract is for 2 (two years) from the
date of Agreement and your supply activity shall
commence within 3 (three days) from the date of
Agreement. The rates quoted by you and
accepted by the Committee and binding on you
are as under:
S.No. Category Our offer
1. All inpatients and Rs.72/-
attendants of tribal
(Rupees Seventy two only)
patients
2. Inpatients (T.B/ Rs. 112.00 (Rupees one
Mental and hundred and twelve only) per
Therapeutic patients patient.
3. Duty doctors Rs.160.00 (Rupees one
hundred and sixty only) per
head
3. At the time of execution of the Agreement you
have to furnish a list of names of the staff and workers
who will be assisting you in the diet supply activities
under the Agreement.
4. Please note in case you fail to comply with the
above terms and conditions, this letter stands
WP_10182_2023
13 SN,J
withdrawn and the EMD forfeited without any prior
notice of whatever notice.
5. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.
V) The counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in
particular paras 5 and 7 reads as under:
"5. It is respectfully submitted that the existing
contractor M/s. Sahasra represented by it's M.D.Mrs.
Deepika Diet Contractor was filed a writ appeal no. 554
of 2022 in W.P.no. 20391 of 2022 and the same was
disposed by its order dated:-29-8-2022 with the
directions" the parties to dispute resolution to be carried
out in terms of article 11 (B) of contract agreement
dated:-21-1-2022, which shall be carried out between
respondent No.3 i.e District Diet management
Committee and the applicant and concluded within a
period of (30) days from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order till the period of (30) days
status quo as on today regard supply of diet
respondent no.4 in W.A.No. 554/2022 shall be
continued".
In obedience to the directions issued in W.A.no. 554 of
2022 the DOMC convened a meeting on 19-09-2022
and heard Mrs.Deepika M.D Sahasra Diet Contractor
about her plea to continue her Diet Contract till the
completion of tenure i.e.(2) years with revised rates.
WP_10182_2023
14 SN,J
Both the parties not found the acceptable solution
and the matter has been referred to the state level
diet Management Committee on 20-09-2022.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the letter of award of
contract issued to M/s Shivenari Canteen Services on
27-8-2022 and directed to take over the charge of
Kitchen and enter in to the Contract agreement
within 10 days from the receipt of the order. But
He did not act immediately and not taken the
possession of the Kitchen premises and the
allegations made by the petitioner in the W.P No.10182
of 2023 under point no 7 is baseless as he has given the
official letter to take over the charge of the Kitchen
premises immediately but he failed to do so.
Meanwhile M/s. Sahasra filed W.A.No. 554 of
2022 and they got the orders from the Hon'ble
high Court to maintain status quo.
VI) The interim stay granted on 17.04.2023 in
I.A.No.2 of 2023 reads as under:
"Taking into consideration the submissions of both
counsel on record and also the specific averments made
in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2023 in
W.P.No.10182 of 2023, there shall be stay of all further
proceedings pursuant to the tender notification
No.HDS/GHS/2023/1016, dated 01.04.2023 issued by
WP_10182_2023
15 SN,J
the 3rd respondent, till the date of pronouncement of
final verdict."
The above stay is in force as on date.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSON:
a) A bare perusal of the letter of Award of Contract dated
27.08.2022 issued in favour of the petitioner herein by the 3rd
respondent clearly indicates that after due process of the
tenders, the petitioner had been selected for Award of the
Contract on certain specific conditions and further that the
Contract is for two (02) years from the date of Agreement
and supply activity shall commence within three days from
the date of Agreement and the petitioner had to execute the
Contract Agreement in two sets within 10 (ten) days from the
date of receipt of the said letter dated 27.08.2022.
b) It is not in dispute that the existing contractor had filed
Writ Petition No.20391 of 2022 challenging his termination
order and the same was dismissed by order dated 01.08.2022
and aggrieved by the same, the said contractor had preferred
Writ Appeal No.554 of 2022 (extracted above) and the same
was disposed of by order dated 29.08.2022 with a direction to
resolve the disputes between the parties as per Article 11(b)
WP_10182_2023
16 SN,J
of the Agreement through best efforts by mutual discussions
and further that though the Court directed that in the event
the parties do not arrive at any acceptable solution within 30
days there shall be appeal to the State Level Committee and
that the decision shall be final and binding on both the parties
and till the period of 30 days status quo as on the date of the
order i.e., 29.08.2022 as regard to supply of diet shall be
continued.
c) It is pertinent to note here that the State Level
Committee had not concluded the dispute resolution within
the stipulated time as directed by the High Court and no
Agreement was entered into in favour of the petitioner by
virtue of the orders of the status quo, though, the letter of
Award of Contract dated 27.08.2022 clearly stipulated that
the petitioner had to execute the Contract Agreement in two
sets within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of letter of
Award of Contract dated 27.08.2022.
d) A bare perusal of the contents of the proceedings dated
27.02.2023 vide Rc.No.3552/HDS/GHS/2022-23/604
(extracted above), clearly indicates that explanation had been
called upon from the petitioner on the ground that security
WP_10182_2023
17 SN,J
deposit submitted by the petitioner to participate in the diet
tender dated 16.08.2022 was drawn by one Sri Koduri Suresh
Babu, who is an unsuccessful bidder for the same tender and
also accused in FIR No.98 of 2021 in Niloufer Diet
misappropriation case. Further, the petitioner was called
upon to give petitioner's explanation about his connection
with the said Sri Koduri Suresh Babu, who has paid his
security deposit. A bare perusal of the proceedings dated
27.02.2023 of the 5th respondent further indicates that the
explanation of the petitioner should be submitted within three
(03) days failing which action would be initiated against the
petitioner presuming that the petitioner had no explanation to
offer in response to the said notice dated 27.02.2023 issued
by the 5th respondent. The petitioner submitted a detailed
explanation on 04.03.2023 stating that the Earnest Money
Deposit (EMD) was submitted in the right way and that
petitioner had requested Mr. Suresh Babu,
to adjust money or draw the Demand Draft as a hand loan,
and based on petitioner's request, the said Suresh Babu had
drawn the demand draft and given the amount to the
WP_10182_2023
18 SN,J
petitioner and the petitioner had repaid back the amount to
him on 16.11.2022.
e) A bare perusal of paras 5 and 7 of the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents (referred to and
extracted above) clearly discloses the above referred
facts pertaining to Writ Petition No.20391 of 2022 and
Writ Appeal No.554 of 2022. This Court opines that the
order impugned dated 01.04.2023 in
Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026 and subsequent Tender
Notification No.HDS/GHS/2023/1016, date 01.04.2023
need to be set aside for the following reasons:
I) Though the letter of Award of Contract dated
27.08.2022 had been issued to the petitioner by the 5th
respondent informing the petitioner that after due process of
the tenders, the petitioner had been selected for Award of the
Contract and further that the Contract is for a period of two
(02) years from the date of Agreement and the Contract
Agreement had to be executed within ten (10) days from the
date of receipt of the letter of Award of Contract dated
27.08.2022, fact remains as borne on record, the respondents
however, did not initiate any steps in this regard in view of
WP_10182_2023
19 SN,J
the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated
29.08.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.554 of 2022 and no
Agreement had been admittedly entered into between the
petitioner and the respondents herein in view of the orders of
the status quo passed by the High Court;
II) The order impugned in Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026 dated
01.04.2023 is an unreasoned order, it does not assign one
single reason in cancelling the Award of Contract for Diet
supply in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad to the petitioner
herein; and the same admittedly is a unilateral and irrational
decision which is in clear violation of principles of Natural
Justice.
III) The order impugned in Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026 dated
01.04.2023 is passed without application of mind in a routine
mechanical manner without even considering the petitioner's
explanation dated 04.03.2023 submitted by the petitioner in
response to the notice dated 27.02.2023 issued to the
petitioner herein calling upon the petitioner's explanation;
IV) In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 'reason'
has been defined as a "faculty of the mind by which it
WP_10182_2023
20 SN,J
distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and
which enables the possessor to deduce inferences from
facts or from propositions".
'Reason' means the faculty of rational thought
rather than some abstract relationship between
propositions and by this faculty, it is meant the
capacity to make correct inferences from propositions,
to size up facts for which they are and what they imply,
and to identify the best means to some end, and, in
general, to distinguish what we should believe from
what we merely do believe.
V) In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC
1984, the apex Court held that keeping in view the
expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice,
the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as
one of the principles of natural justice which governs
exercise of power by administrative authorities. Except
in cases where the requirement has been dispensed
with expressly or by necessary implication, an
administrative authority is required to record reasons
for its decision.
WP_10182_2023
21 SN,J
VI) In Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, JT 2003
(Supp.II) SC 354, the apex Court has held that
"reason" is the heart beat of every conclusion and
without the same it becomes lifeless. The same view
has also been taken in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram
Luhar, JT (2004) 2 SC 172.
VII) In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of Inida, AIR 1978 SC
597, the apex Court held as follows:
"The reasons, if disclosed, being open to judicial
scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the
refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to
the scrutiny of the Court; or else, the wholesome power
of a dispassionate judicial examination of executive
orders could with impunity be set at naught by an
obdurate determination to suppress the reasons"
VIII) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 405 in "Mohinder Singh Gill and another
v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and
others"1 at para 8 observed as under:
(1978)1 Supreme Court Cases 405
WP_10182_2023
22 SN,J
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that
when a statutory functionary makes an order
based on certain grounds, its validity must be
judged by the reasons so mentioned and
cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in
the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may,
by the time it comes to Court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds
later brought out. We may here draw attention
to the observations of Bose, J. In Gordhandas
Bhanji:
Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the
light of explanations subsequently given by the
officer making the order of what he meant, or of
what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.
Public orders made by public authorities are
meant to have public effect and are intended to
affect the actings and conduct of those to whom
they are addressed and must be construed
objectively with reference to the language used
in the order itself.
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they
grow older."
WP_10182_2023
23 SN,J
IX) In Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food, (1968) 1 All ER 694 (HL), it has been held a
failure to give reasons may permit the Court to infer
that the decision was reached by reasons of an error in
law.
X) This Court opines that the reasons given in the Notice
dated 27.02.2023 calling upon the petitioner's explanation do
not find place at all in the order impugned dated 01.04.2023
vide Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026 of the 5th respondent and the only
reason given in the order impugned is that the 5th respondent
has referred minutes of State Level Diet Management
Committee Meeting held on 29.03.2023 which had resolved to
cancel the award of diet contract to the petitioner and to go
for fresh tenders and hence, the Award of Diet Contract to the
petitioner is cancelled.
XI) This Court also takes note of the fact that it is only
in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents at para '7' (extracted above), a plea is
taken by the respondents that the petitioner did not act
immediately and had not taken the possession of the
kitchen premises. It is in fact pleaded by the learned
WP_10182_2023
24 SN,J
counsel for the respondents before this Court that the
petitioner did not comply with sub clause (b) of Clause
1 of the letter of Award of Contract dated 27.08.2022
issued in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner had
to execute the contract Agreement in two sets within
(10) days from the date of receipt of the letter of
Award of contract dated 27.08.2022 and the petitioner
failed to do so and therefore, the petitioner could not
proceed with the said work. This submission of the
learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted
in view of the averment, made specifically at para '5' of
the counter affidavit filed by the respondents
(extracted above) in the present writ petition. The plea
taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that
the petitioner did not comply with sub clause (b) of
Clause 1 of the letter of Award of Contract dated
27.08.2022 does not find place even in the Notice dated
27.02.2023 issued by the 5th respondent to the
petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit
petitioner's explanation within three (03) days or in the
impugned order passed by the 5th respondent in
WP_10182_2023
25 SN,J
Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026 dated 01.04.2023 and the said
plea is totally unacceptable and the same is rejected in
view of the observations of the Apex Court in Mohinder
Singh Gill's case (referred to and extracted above).
XII) This Court opines that recording of reason
ensures that justice is not only done but is also be seen
to be done. Recording of reasons also operates as a
legitimate restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise
of judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative power by
any authority and as such is a facilitator of Rule of Law.
XIII) This Court is of the firm opinion that the
reasons and circumstances for passing order impugned
is unexplained in the order impugned dated 01.04.2023
vide Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026 of the 5th respondent and
the same is irrational, unilateral, arbitrary, in clear
violation of principles of natural justice and vitiated too
and hence is liable to be set aside. Reason is the soul of
justice. Any order passed, whether in the exercise of
judicial or administrative powers vested in the
Authority, must be speaking and the same requires
WP_10182_2023
26 SN,J
recording of reasons in support of the conclusions
arrived at in the order and failure to give reasons
tantamount to denial of justice.
XIV) Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, and the law laid by the Apex Court in
the various judgments i.e. (1) In S.N. Mukherjee v.
Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, (2) In
Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, reported JT 2003
(Supp.II) SC 354, (3) In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of
Inida, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, (4) In "Mohinder
Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 405, and (5) In Padfield v Minister of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, reported in (1968) 1
All ER 694 (HL) (referred to and extracted above), the
writ petition is allowed, and the proceedings in
Rc.No.GHS/2023/1026, dated 01.04.2023 of the 5th
respondent cancelling the letter of Award of Contract
dated 27.08.2022 issued in favour of the petitioner and
WP_10182_2023
27 SN,J
subsequent Tender Notification No.HDS/GHS/2023/
2016 dated 01.04.2023 are set aside.
XV) A bare perusal of the contents of the
representation dated 27.12.2022 of the petitioner
addressed to the 3rd respondent clearly indicates that
the petitioner requested to allot contract for diet supply
in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad to the petitioner as
per the allotment order vide Rc.No.HDS/GHS/2022/
964 dated 27.08.2022 of the 5th respondent and also as
per the letter of Award of contract dated 27.08.2022
issued to the petitioner, and that in spite of the
petitioner's repeated requests, the possession of the
subject premises was not handed over to the petitioner
for supply of diet. The respondents are further directed
to consider petitioners representation dated
27.12.2022 pertaining to handing over the possession
of kitchen (subject premises) for diet supply in Gandhi
Hospital to the petitioner herein, within two weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and
WP_10182_2023
28 SN,J
pass appropriate orders duly communicating the
decision to the petitioner.
Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending shall stands
closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 25.04.2022
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o yvkr/kvrm
