Telangana High Court
M/S Krishna Constructions And Amrutha ... vs The State Of Telangana on 17 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.163 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the appellant;
Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Medical and Health, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. Heard on admission.
3. This Intra-Court Appeal takes exception to the order,
dated 22.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP.No.12012 of 2023.
4. The admitted facts between the parties are that the appellant,
who is the writ petitioner and respondent No.5 submitted their bids
pursuant to the notification inviting tender issued in February,
2023. The stand of learned counsel for the appellant is that the
appellant was already running his canteen with the official
respondents. The appellant's technical bid was considered and no
deficiency was pointed out. He was shocked to see the proceedings
dated 24.03.2023 (Page No.94), wherein the writ petitioner despite
being L1 has not been given the tender. Instead, respondent No.5
was granted tender, which was called in question before the Writ
Court.
5. The bone of contention of learned counsel for the appellant is
that since the appellant was already running the canteen with the
official respondents and in the technical bid, no deficiency was
pointed out, the appellant should not have been deprived for not
producing the Food Safety Licence. However, this Food Safety
Licence was "subsequently" produced by the appellant. Thus, Writ
Court was not justified in rejecting the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order and pointed out that as per the terms and
conditions of tender notification, the bidder was required to submit
necessary documents such as trade licence, labour licence, Food
Safety Licence as well as Sales Tax Certificate. Condition No.19 of
the tender conditions was pointed out. The learned Single Judge in
the impugned order of aforesaid writ petition has pointed as under:
" 7. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having
perused the material on record, it is clear that tender process in
nd
question was initiated by the 2 respondent through a
notification issued in February 2023; terms and conditions of
which explicitly required bidders to submit an Earnest Money
Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with mandatory
documents, including a valid Food Safety License, Trade License,
Labour License, Sales Tax Certificate, etcetera. Admittedly,
th
petitioner and the 5 respondent participated in the bidding
th
process wherein petitioner quoted Rs. 48,000/- while the 5
respondent at Rs. 33,000/- per month. However, upon scrutiny of
the documents, petitioner's bid was found non-compliant due to
the absence of a valid Food Safety License. The Tender
Committee, comprising Additional Collector, Superintendent
GGH, and CSRMO GGH, evaluated the bids on 22.02.2023,
disqualified petitioner for non-compliance with mandatory
th
requirements and negotiated with the 5 respondent to match the
th
highest bid. This negotiation resulted in the 5 respondent
agreeing to pay Rs. 48,000/- per month. Therefore, the impugned
th
proceedings was issued awarding contract to the 5 respondent
and on the same date, petitioner was directed to vacate the
premises by 16.04.2023. In the light of the above, it is clear that
disqualification of petitioner was based on a clear and objective
criterion. Furthermore, petitioner suppressed material facts,
including his non-compliance with tender requirements and the
th
committee's subsequent negotiation with the 5 respondent.
Suppression of such facts undermines the Petitioner's case and
casts doubt on their bona fides."
7. A plain reading of this paragraph shows that since the
appellant did not produce the valid Food Safety Licence along with
his bid, the authorities have treated him as disqualified. The learned
Single Judge in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order has rightly
held that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited.
This Court is mainly concerned with the correctness of the decision
making process. Otherwise, in the present day economic activities,
it is within the province of employer to decide as to whom contract
is to be given. So far the decision making process is concerned, we
are constrained to hold that no fault can be found in such decision
making process. Merely because the appellant was running canteen
for the last few years, it does not give him any licence not to produce
the valid Food Safety Licence, when it was a mandatory eligibility
condition of tender inviting notification.
8. Pertinently, the appellant has not chosen to file Food Safety
Licence along with this Writ Appeal also, whereas, said licence of
respondent No.5 is filed along with Writ Appeal. Thus, we find
no difficulty in accepting the finding of the learned Single
Judge that along with tender documents essential document
establishing eligibility was not filed. Thus, no fault
can be found in the decision making process.
Apart from that, pursuant to a negotiation, the L2 agreed to pay
tender quoted price which was offered by the L1. Thus, the
employer has taken care of its institution's financial health and
interest. The learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view.
In absence of producing valid Food Safety License, the appellant
could not get any enforceable right to participate in the proceedings
and succeed.
9. The Writ Appeal sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No
costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
17.03.2025
Nvl
