Telangana High Court

Siri Farms vs The State Of Telangana on 16 June, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                    WRIT PETITION No.15709 of 2025
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"... directing the respondents to finalize the bids/tender submitted by the eligible and qualified persons/firms pursuant to the tender reference NO.1074/WDCW/AL & SLP/Eggs/I/2025, dated 30.03.2025 by the 2nd respondent on or before 16.06.2025 at 04.00 PM without further postponing the last date for submission of tenders ....."

2) Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel,

representing Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and learned Advocate General appearing for the

respondents.

3) Learned senior counsel has contended that the petitioner

Firm is carrying the business of running poultry farms and

supplying the same to its customers including the Government.

While so, respondent No.2 has issued tender notification vide

Tender Ref.No.1074/WDCW/AL & SLP/Eggs/I/2025, dated

30.03.2025, for procurement of eggs (hen) as per Agmark with

other specifications for a period of one year for supply to all

Anganwadi Centres (AWCs) under department of Women

Development & Child Welfare Department. As per the tender

schedule, the downloading of the documents starts from

30.03.2025 11.00 AM; the last date for submission of the tenders

-2- PK, J wp_15709_2025

online on 10.04.2025 at 4.00 PM; last date, time and place of

submission of hard copy including EMD is 10.04.2025 at 5.00 PM;

the opening of technical bid is on 11.04.2025 at 11.00 AM; opening

of price bid is on 11.04.2025 at 3.00 PM and the tender inviting

and opening authority is respondent No.2 herein. It is further

submitted that as the petitioner is eligible, qualified and possessing

Agmark and grading Certifies issued by the Director of Marketing,

Hyderabad, it responded to the tender notification dated

30.03.2025 and submitted tenders including technical bid as well

as price bid in respect of three zones i.e. Zone I, Zone-II and Zone-

III, paid EMD of Rs.10 lakhs for each zone by way of online

payment through e-procurement portal on 08.04.2025 and

Rs.10,000/- by way of demand draft in favour of respondent No.2

for each zone on 07.04.2025. Learned senior counsel has further

submitted that initially the last date for submission of tenders was

stipulated as 10.04.2025 at 4.00 PM and the same was extended

from time to time i.e. initially upto 15.04.2025, thereafter to

15.05.2025 and again to 16.06.2025 without assigning any

reasons for such postponement. Learned senior counsel has

strenuously contended that due to extension of last date for

submission of tenders, the petitioner is unable to participate in

other tenders issued by others. Petitioner and other similarly

situated persons/Firms have already submitted their bids by

-3- PK, J wp_15709_2025

paying huge amounts towards EMD and processing fee and due to

extension of last date, they are facing financial implications. It is

further contended that the postponement of tenders is also having

cascading effect on the beneficiaries of Arogya Laxmi Scheme i.e.

pregnant women and children upto the age of 6 age. Therefore, the

learned senior counsel prayed this Court to issue suitable

directions to the respondents to finalize the tenders on before

16.06.2025 without further postponing the last date for

submission of tender. Reliance has been placed on State of

Haryana v. Malik Traders 1.

4) Per contra, the learned Advocate General, on written

instructions, has submitted that presently the eggs are procured

by various departments under different welfare schemes such as

Supplementary Nutrition Programme, Mid-Meal programme, Meal

Provision at residential Institutes etc. and eggs are utilized for

providing nutritious meal to the beneficiaries/stakeholders. The

Government is exploring options to scaling up the quality

parameters used in Supplementary Nutrition Programme and

Arogyalakshmi to other programmes also and the said expansion is

under active consideration by the Government as the said measure

would standardize the quality of eggs being provided to the

beneficiaries along with streamlining the procurement procedure

(2011) 13 SCC 200

-4- PK, J wp_15709_2025

and the said exercise involves policy decisions at different levels.

Thus, in view of the ongoing policy deliberations, the Women

Development & Child Welfare Department has postponed the

tender closing date to align with upcoming policy decisions.

Learned Advocate General has contended that extension of last

date is merely an administrative necessity to align the procurement

process with forthcoming policy directions to ensure uniformity

and accountability in public nutrition interventions. Further, the

decision to postpone the opening of the tender is taken as the

department is awaiting the policy guidelines which are being

formulated to have a concerted effort in procurement of eggs by

various departments of the Government. Learned Advocate

General has further submitted that the petitioner is an existing

supplier and continued supply till March, 2025 i.e. beyond the

original tender period of February, 2025, without any disruption.

Hence, the extension of last date has caused no prejudice to the

petitioner. In fact, as per the terms and conditions of the tender

notification, the hard copy of the Demand Draft shall be submitted

on or before 10.04.2025 whereas the petitioner has submitted the

same on 30.04.2025 duly availing the benefit of extension of last

date for bid submission. Therefore, the petitioner having utilized

the extension of last date cannot file the present writ petition

questioning the said extension. Lastly, the learned Advocate

-5- PK, J wp_15709_2025

General has submitted that the department will open the tenders

and procurement of eggs will be finalized as soon as possible.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

respective counsel and perused the material on record.

6) As can be seen from the material on record, admittedly, the

tender notification vide Ref.No.1074/WDCW/AL & SLP/Eggs/I/

2025 was issued on 30.03.2025 by respondent No.2 for

procurement of eggs (hen) for a period of one year to the

beneficiaries under Arogya Lakshmi Program and Supplementary

Nutrition Program for Zones 1 to 7. As per the said notification,

the last date and time for submission of online bids is 10.04.2025

at 4.00 PM; last date, time and place for submission of hard copies

including EMD is stipulated as 10.04.2025 at 5.00 pm at the office

of respondent No.2; opening of the technical bid was scheduled on

11.04.2025 at 11.00 am and opening of price bid was scheduled on

the same day at 3.00 pm at the office of respondent No.2.

However, the stipulated tender closing date i.e. 10.04.2025 was

extended to 15.04.2025, again to 15.05.2025 and again to

16.06.2025. Though the petitioner has contended that it paid

EMD of Rs.10 lakhs for each zone, as per the contentions of the

respondents the petitioner submitted the hard copies at the office

of respondent No.2 only on 30.04.2025. Thus, the petitioner had

-6- PK, J wp_15709_2025

availed the benefit of extension of closure date and thereafter filed

the present writ petition questioning such extension, which cannot

be appreciated.

7) That apart, it is the specific stand of the respondents that

the authorities are exploring options to scaling up the quality

parameters used in Supplementary Nutrition Programme and

Arogyalakshmi to other programmes also and the said expansion is

under active consideration by the Government in order to

standardize the quality of eggs being provided to the beneficiaries.

In that view of the matter, no mala fide can be attributed to the

respondents in extending the last date from time to time and even

the same is also not the case of the petitioner herein. Therefore,

the decision of the respondents to extend the last date on

administrative grounds cannot be interfered with by this Court.

8) In this context, it is relevant to state that in Shobikaa

Impex (P) Ltd. vs. Central Medical Services Society 2, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that:

".... The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It has been further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the

2 (2016) 16 SCC 233

-7- PK, J wp_15709_2025

Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point."

9) For the aforementioned reasons and in view of the settled

proposition of law, referred supra, this Court does not find any

ground to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.

10) Insofar as the judgment relied by the petitioner is concerned,

the said case is distinguishable on facts with the present case as in

the said case the Court was dealing with forfeiture of bid security

deposit whereas in the present case the grievance of the petitioner

is with regard to extension of last date.

11) However, keeping in view the interest of beneficiaries of

Supplementary Nutrition Programme and Arogyalakshmi

programme as well as the tenderers, who spent substantial

amounts towards EMDs, and also the fact that the subject tenders