Telangana High Court
M/S Ayyappa Enterprises vs L Jhansi on 3 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1212 OF 2025
Mr. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sanjeev Reddy Gillela, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant.
Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sarasani Rahul Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
Mr. M. P. K. Aditya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4-
TVVP.
Mr. R. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health
appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 7.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated
10.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.22696 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1 herein.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition was for a Writ of
Mandamus directing the Additional Collector and the
Chairman to award the contract to the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner. The dispute brought by the writ petitioner to the
Court relates to a Tender Notification dated 12.06.20205
issued by the concerned authorities for supply of diet to the
inpatients of Area Hospital and 2 Community Health Centres
situated at Bhainsa, Narsapur and Mudhole.
3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant (the respondent No.7 in W.P.No.22696 of 2025),
learned counsel appearing for the Tendering Authority/the
respondent No.7 as well as learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
4. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent No.1 to
challenge the contract awarded to the appellant/respondent
No.7 for supply of diet in the aforementioned Area Hospital
and 2 Community Health Centres. The ground of challenge to
the award of tender was that the action of the concerned
State Authority violating the terms of the Tender Notification,
dated 12.06.2025. The learned Single Judge found the
substance in the case made out by the writ petitioner and
held inter alia and allowed the Writ Petition by directing the
respondent No.5-Additional Collector and Chairman to award
the contract to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner for
supply of diet pursuant to the Notification, dated 12.06.2025.
The relief given to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was on
the ground that the Notification contained Note stating that
'the eligible local/District Mahila Samakhya shall be given
preference' and that the Tender Authority should have
awarded the contract to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner
since the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was a local
Scheduled Tribe Women and had also quoted the same price
i.e., Rs.72/- along with the other Tenderers.
5. The undisputed facts disclosed on behalf of the parties
are as follows:
6. The Tender Notification, dated 12.06.2025 contains a
Note stating that the preference will be given to the eligible
local/District Mahila Samakhya. The Writ Petitioner was an
individual, who claimed to be a local Scheduled Tribe Women.
However, it is undisputed that the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner failed to produce any Certificate confirming her
eligibility under the Note in the Tender Notification, whereby
preference was to be given to a local/ District Mahila
Samakhya, but produced her Certificates confirming her
status only at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition before
the learned Single Judge. It is also undisputed that the writ
petitioner was absent at the time of draw of lots and also it
was intimated to the husband of the petitioner to attend the
tender finalization process by the Convenor of the District
Diet Managing Committee (DDMC), wherein he clearly stated
that he was unable to attend and that he would accept the
decision of the DDMC. These facts have been specifically
stated in the counter of the Tender Authority, which is part of
the record.
7. It is also admitted that the appellant herein/respondent
No.7 was awarded the Tender not through any unilateral
decision or the exercise of discretionary power of the Tender
Authority, but through a process of drawing of lots. The
drawing of lots was undertaken since all the bidders bid for
the same price i.e., Rs.72/-.
8. The above facts make it clear that there was no scope
for the writ petitioner to complain of any arbitrary or
unreasonable exercise of power by the Tender Authority. The
very fact that the award was made pursuant to the drawing of
lots would satisfy the test of transparency and bona fides on
the part of the Tender Authority. Further, the grievance of the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner before the learned Single
Judge of not being informed about the Tender finalization
process also appears to be doubtful. There is no rebuttal on
the part of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to the fact
that the writ petitioner's husband was informed till the
finalization process. The Court is also informed that the
recording of the writ petitioner being the current supplier of
diet is also incorrect, since the appellant continues till date.
9. However, what is more relevant is that there has been
no violation of the Tender Notification, including the Note
therein. The Note simply states that the preference will be
given to the eligible local/ District Mahila Samakhya. As
stated above, the writ petitioner did not produce any
Certificate to show that she is eligible under the said Note.
10. It is a well settled that a Writ Court shall not interfere
with the decision of the Tender Authority unless the decision
is found to be coloured by extraneous considerations. The
Courts have consistently held that the Tender Authority is
the best person to decide the eligible Tenderer or the person
best suited for the job. In the present case, the strictures to
be applied on the Writ Court would apply to the facts of the
present case, since the Court has not found any arbitrary or
illegal action on the part of the Tender Authority in selecting
the appellant/respondent No.7.
11. We accordingly, find merit in the Writ Appeal. The
impugned order, dated 10.10.2025 is set aside and
W.A.No.1212 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
All connected applications are disposed of. No order
as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
DATE: 03.11.2025
prat
