Sri Venkateshwara Association vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in selecting the unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 8 as the Successful Bidders with respect to the Tender Notification Rc.No.1142/E1 GGH/2020-25 dated 23.09.2025 for awarding contract for supply of diet to in-patients and duty doctors in Government General Hospital (GGH), Ongole, disregarding the complaint dated 10.12.2025 and representation dated 16.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set-aside the selection/allotment of the tender contract to unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 8 with respect to Tender Notification dated 23.09.2025 and direct the respondents to consider the complaint dated 10.12.2025 and representation dated 16.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner.

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, engaged in the business of supply of diet services to patients and WP_35483_2025 duty doctors in Hospitals, providing diet supply services to inpatients and duty doctors in Government General Hospital, Ongole, since 2010. Respondent No.1 had issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.325 HM&FW (M1) Department dated 01.11.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.309 HM&FW (M1) Department dated 02.12.2022, streamlining the ongoing system of management of diet supply to the inpatients. In accordance with the said G.Os, Respondent No.2 issued Tender Notification Rc.No.1142/E1 GGH/2020-25 dated 23.09.2025 in e-procurement portal inviting tenders for supply of diet to in-patients and duty doctors in GGH, Ongole, for a contract period of two years. In pursuance of the tender notifications, the six bidders were participated in the tender process including the petitioner. Though opening of the tenders has been postponed initially, the bids were opened on 16.12.2025 where the petitioner was qualified in the technical and financial bids and emerged as one of the five qualified bidders. While so, during the evaluation of the bids, the petitioner raised certain complaints based on the uploaded documents in e- procurement portal against the participating bidders pointing out the major deviations from the prescribed tender conditions before Respondent No.

In view of the same, Respondent Nos.3 & 4 vide WP_35483_2025 letter dated 04.12.2025 directed the petitioner to submit the complaint furnishing complete information along with documentary evidences in support of the allegations on or before 11.12.2025, as such, the petitioner had submitted complaint dated 10.12.2025 to Respondent Nos.2 to 4, pointing out certain deviations identified by it. However, no consideration had been given to the aforesaid complaint nor any response or action had been taken in consideration of the same by the respondent authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 16.12.2025 to Respondent No.2 reminding about the complaints previously submitted for conducting fair and impartial enquiry in accordance with law and also objecting to adopt the lottery system or equal sharing method for deciding the successful bidders. To the surprise of the petitioner, on 16.12.2025, the respondent authorities have proceeded to adopt both the lottery system and then equal sharing method, wherein the work and contract period had been divided among the unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 8 out of five qualified bidders including the petitioner who were selected through the lottery system. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents in evaluation, finalization and selection of the successful bidders for WP_35483_2025 allotment of the tender contract, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

Respondent No.4 – Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Ongole filed detailed counter affidavit, denying the allegations. It is submitted that; a. The Tender Notification vide Rc.No.1142/E1/GGH/2020- 25 dated 22.09.2025 was issued in the e-procurement portal, in compliance with G.O.Ms.No.325 HM&FW (M1) Department dated 01.11.2011. As per the terms of notification, the last date for submission of bids was fixed as 07.10.2025 and opening of bids was scheduled on 08.10.2025. A Pre-Bid meeting was duly notified and scheduled on 27.09.2025 at 11:00 A.M specifically to enable prospective bidders to seek clarifications, raise queries or express any objections with regard to the tender conditions. However, no bidder, including the petitioner chose to attend the Pre-Bid Meeting. b. In response to the tender notification, a total of six bidders have participated in the tender process by duly WP_35483_2025 submitting their technical and financial bids. The 2nd respondent, in strict compliance with the terms of the tender document opened the bids on 08.10.2025 in the presence of all the bidders, including the petitioner. Upon evaluation of the bids, five bidders were qualified and the petitioner is one among the qualified bidders. c. The petitioner has knowingly and materially misrepresented facts before this Hon’ble Court by alleging that the bids pursuant to the tender notification were opened on 16.12.2025, which is false and misleading. The bids were opened on 08.10.2025 in the presence of all the bidders, including the petitioner herein. d. The petitioner filed W.P.No.27573 of 2025 challenging the same tender notification, which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 14.10.2025, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 23.09.2025 in view of the fact that the tender process has already been commenced and bids have already been opened.

Respondent No.6 – Authorized Signatory of M/s. Krishna Constructions filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the writ pe-tition is liable to be dismissed in limini on the sole ground of suppression of material facts. The petitioner deliberately concealed the fact that it had earlier filed W.P.No.27573 of 2025 challenging the very same tender notification which was dismissed by this Court on 14.10.2025 with a categorical observation that the tender process had already commenced and bids were opened. A litigant who approaches the Court with such unclean hands is not entitled to any discretionary relief. The petitioner having earlier challenged the tender process and having suffered an adverse order, is barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata from re-agitating the very same issues under the guise of a fresh cause of action. The present writ petition is nothing but a second round of litigation, which is impermissible under law. The petitioner has knowingly and falsely WP_35483_2025 pleaded that the bids were opened on 16.12.2025 which is untrue, but the bids were opened on 08.10.2025 in the presence of all bidders, including the petitioner. The petitioner was physically present at the time of opening of the technical bids and raised no objection whatsoever. Having acquiesced in the process, the petitioner stopped from subsequently questioning the same after realizing that the outcome was unfavourable. The allegations made against Respondent No.6 regarding alleged disqualification, past issues, purported irregularities are incorrect and legally untenable. The competent authorities, after due verification, considered all relevant material including the matters sought to be re-agitated by the petitioner. The petitioner’s challenge to the adoption of draw of lots method is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has no vested or enforceable right to demand award of contract in a particular manner. The decision was taken by the competent committee in the presence of bidders based on majority consensus and in transparent manner. All the bidders quoted the same price so as to clear the confusion and conflict in the tender authorities after due consultation with all the bidders decided to opt lucky draw method for selection. The lucky draw was performed in the presence of the petitioner who is one of WP_35483_2025 the five successful bidders. After becoming successful bidder and winner in the lucky draw, Respondent No.6 was awarded the work contract to commence work from 21.12.2025. The petitioner has no locus standi to seek any relief against Respondent No.6, particularly when no illegality is attributable. The petitioner is attempting to convert a contractual and administrative matter into a constitutional issue which is impermissible. The writ petition is projected under the garb of public interest, whereas it is a purely private commercial dispute driven by the petitioner’s intention to continue monopoly over the contract. The petitioner has failed to make out even a prima facie case warranting interference. The conduct of the petitioner in filing successive petitions, suppressing material facts and making allegations against the successful bidders clearly establishes malafides and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavits filed by Respondent Nos.4 & 6, denying material allegations. It is submitted that, the petitioner never disputed that the tender process commenced and technical bids were opened on 08.10.2025. The action of selection and the adoption of lottery/splitting were undertaken on 16.12.2025. W.P.No.27573 of 2025 was filed by the WP_35483_2025 petitioner on materially different cause of action challenging the notification dated 23.09.2025 and seeking consideration of representation dated 23.09.2025 for extension by one year. Though the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that tender process had already commenced, technical bids had been opened and the petitioner had participated in the tender process. The dismissal of writ petition did not adjudicate the subsequent illegality committed on 16.12.2025 (lottery/splitting/curtailment), which arose after the earlier writ was dismissed. Therefore, dismissal of earlier writ petition is neither a bar nor a ground to non-sue the petitioner in the present writ petition. A plea of ‘unclean hands’ cannot be used as a shield to immunize the violation of tender conditions, particularly in matters involving public procurement and patient care in a Government hospital.

During the course of hearing, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the tendering authority, namely the District Diet Management Committee (DDMC), is attempting to award the contract in favour of three qualified/successful bidders by dividing the tender period of two years, WP_35483_2025 which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender. It was further contended that the tendering authority adopted the method of drawal of lots for selection of the successful bidder, which is impermissible and in violation of the tender conditions.The tendering authority, in deviation from the tender document, accepted certain mandatory documents, namely the GST Registration Certificate of the firm and the Experience Certificate, through offline mode after the date of opening of bids, which amounts to arbitrariness on the part of the tender committee. He further submitted that pursuant to the tender notification, six bidders, including the petitioner, participated in the process, out of which five bidders were found technically qualified and were permitted to participate in the financial bid. As per the terms of the tender, the highest and lowest rates of supply were required to fall within the notified rates. In the present case, all the five qualified bidders quoted the same rate for supply of materials. Once all bidders stood on an equal footing, the tendering authority ought to have evaluated the bidders based on the marks awarded during technical evaluation. Instead, the tendering authority proposed to conduct drawal of lots, in which the petitioner did not participate. Contrary to the terms of the tender, and under the guise of obtaining consent WP_35483_2025 from all qualified bidders, the tender committee awarded the contract in favour of Respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8 by splitting the contract period into three equal terms of eight months each, which is not only contrary to the tender conditions but also violative of settled principles of law. It was further asserted that it is well-established law that the tendering authority cannot alter the terms and conditions of a tender midstream, i.e., from the date of issuance of the tender notification till the selection of the successful bidder and award of contract. However, in the present case, the tender committee changed the rules during the tender process and proposed to award the contract in favour of three bidders, which is illegal and arbitrary. It was further submitted that Respondent No. 6, who has been declared as one of the successful bidders, was blacklisted by the very same department. Mere suspension of the blacklist proceedings pursuant to orders of this Court does not render Respondent No. 6 eligible to participate in the tender process, much less to be selected as a successful bidder. With regard to Respondent No. 7, it was contended that the said respondent failed to submit the firm registration certificate as mandated under the tender conditions. As far as Respondent No. 8 is concerned, it was submitted that mandatory documents were WP_35483_2025 submitted through offline mode, which is expressly prohibited under the terms of the tender. In this backdrop, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 10.12.2025 pointing out the ineligibility and disqualification of Respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8, contending that they were neither technically nor financially qualified, and therefore not eligible for selection as successful bidders. However, the said representation was neither considered nor disposed of prior to the selection of the successful bidders. Therefore, it was contended that the selection of the successful bidders and the consequent award of contract are in clear deviation from the terms and conditions of the tender and are vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of due process of law. Accordingly, the tender notification, along with all consequential proceedings, is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on unreported judgment of the High Court of Telangana in L.G. Traders vs. The State of Telangana [W.P.No.25983 of 2025 dated 31.10.2025] and judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Maihar Cement Pipe Industries vs. Union of India [W.P.No.14843 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024]

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health vehemently contended that the petitioner not only suppressed material facts but also misled this Hon’ble Court in order to secure an interim order in his favour. As per the tender notification, the last date for opening of tenders was 18.10.2025. However, in paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that the tenders were opened on 16.12.2025 and that the writ petition was filed on 18.12.2025, thereby creating a false impression that the tender process had not been finalized as on 16.12.2025. Contrary to the said assertion, the tender was in fact opened on 08.10.2025. Thereafter, the tender committee conducted post-bid meetings with the qualified bidders, including the petitioner, for the purpose of selection of the successful bidders. After due deliberations and with the consent of the qualified bidders, except the petitioner, Respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8 were selected as successful bidders. With the consent of the majority of the qualified bidders, the tender period was equally divided and the contracts were awarded in their favour.

It was further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that it is a settled principle of law that where all bidders are found to be qualified and stand on an equal footing after finalization of the tender process, the tendering authority is empowered to select the successful bidder either by adopting the well-recognized method of drawal of lots or by obtaining the consent of the qualified bidders. In the present case, with the consent of the majority of bidders, except the petitioner, the tender was awarded in favour of Respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8 by equally splitting the tender period. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that, contrary to the allegations made by the petitioner, the tendering authority neither reduced the tender period nor awarded the contract to any person other than the qualified bidders, and therefore, there was no deviation from the terms of the tender. It was also asserted that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the very same tender notification and obtained orders therein even after submitting his bid. However, the said fact was not disclosed in the present writ petition, which clearly amounts to suppression of material facts. It was contended that the petitioner, having participated in the tender process with a malafide intention to stall the proceedings and to WP_35483_2025 continue the existing contract, approached this Court with unclean hands and by misleading the facts.

The learned Government Pleader further submitted that it is well settled law that the conduct of the tender process pursuant to the tender notification lies within the exclusive domain of the tender committee or the tendering authority. In the absence of specific provisions in the tender conditions to address a particular exigency, the tender committee is the best judge to adopt a well-recognized and fair method for selection of the successful bidder. Accordingly, in the present case, the tender authority adopted the procedure of selection with the consent of the majority of the qualified bidders, which cannot be faulted.

Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 8, submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, has neither alleged nor pleaded anywhere in the affidavit or reply affidavit any bias, mala fides, or ulterior motive on the part of the tendering authority. It was further contended that the petitioner has also not pleaded that his bid was improperly considered or arbitrarily rejected. In the absence of any specific averment attributing bias, mala fides, WP_35483_2025 or arbitrariness in the rejection of any tender, it was argued that the Constitutional Courts cannot substitute their own opinion in place of the decision taken by the experts and the tendering authority, which is the owner of the tender. This principle, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is well settled and has been consistently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions.

It was further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has merely alleged deviations on the ground that certain documents were received from the unofficial respondents through offline mode instead of online mode, allegedly in violation of the tender conditions. However, the tender document itself contained a specific note permitting the submission of documents not only through online mode but also through offline mode. In view of the said express provision, the contention of the petitioner that the tender of one of the successful bidders ought to be rejected solely on the ground that mandatory documents were submitted offline is wholly untenable and devoid of merit.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, on the one hand, the petitioner participated in the tender process and was found WP_35483_2025 qualified, and on the other hand, he has been attempting to stall the entire tender process and the selection of successful bidders by filing successive writ petitions, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. It was contended that a bidder who is a competitor in the same tender process cannot be permitted to challenge the selection by alleging deviations on the part of the tendering authority, particularly in the absence of any mala fides or arbitrariness. It was further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that the tendering authority or the tender committee, being an expert body, is vested with the exclusive authority to assess the requirements of the tender and to frame tender conditions to meet the necessities and exigencies of the process. Since the tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements and the manner of fulfillment thereof, the selection of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 (unofficial respondents) cannot be said to be contrary to the terms of the tender or based on any unknown or impermissible procedure. Accordingly, it was contended that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tata Motors Limited vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport WP_35483_2025 Undertaking and others 1 , Agmatel India Private Limited vs. Resoursys Telecom and Others2, Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd3, M/s. Utkal Suppliers vs. M/s. Maa Kanak Durga Enterprises4 and BTL EPC petitioner, contended that the petitioner’s failure to mention the particulars of the earlier writ petition, which challenged the very same tender notification, does not amount to suppression of material facts. It was submitted that the earlier writ petition was filed seeking a distinct and independent relief, namely, clarification of the tender conditions in favour of the petitioner as an existing contractor. Therefore, the said proceedings were not required to be disclosed in the present writ petition, which is founded on a separate cause of action. Consequently, the non-disclosure of the earlier writ petition

Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.8 and perused the material available on record.

The fact remains that the present tender notification was issued in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 325, HM&FW (M1) Department, dated 01.11.2011. The tender notification clearly and categorically stipulated the conditions governing the tender, including that the duration of the contract shall be for a period of two years. Admittedly, the tender conditions do not provide any specific mechanism for selection of the successful bidder in the event that all qualified bidders stand on an equal footing.

It is a settled principle of law that the tendering authority is the master of the tender and is empowered to frame additional or supplementary conditions during the process of finalization of the tender, if such measures are necessitated to meet exigencies or to serve public interest, so long as the same do not violate the WP_35483_2025 fundamental terms of the tender. In the present case, the tender authority/tender committee adopted a procedure of obtaining the consent of the majority of the qualified bidders for selection of the successful bidders. Accordingly, the tendering authority selected the unofficial respondents, namely Respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8, as successful bidders and awarded the contract by splitting the original tender period of two years into three equal terms of eight months each. The said selection and award of contract were completed prior to the filing of the present writ petition.

As contended by the learned Government Pleader, it appears that the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands and suppressed material facts and tried to mislead this Court. Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, reads as follows:

It is stated that the tender was opened on 16.12.2025; however, in fact, the tender was opened on 08.10.2025, and the work orders were issued in favour of the successful bidders even prior to the filing of the present writ petition.

In fact, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition, after submission of his bid, challenging the very same tender notification on the ground of seeking consideration of his representation for extension of the tender period. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court earlier. However, the petitioner did not bring the said fact to the notice of this Court while filing the present writ petition. Though the relief sought in the present writ petition is stated to be different from that claimed in the earlier writ petition, the non- disclosure of the earlier proceedings appears to be an attempt to veil the suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner.

On perusal of filing of the writ petition one after the other, it clearly indicates that the petitioner is attempting to stall the tender process, having participated and qualified in the tender, with a WP_35483_2025 malafide intention to continue in existing contract, without finalizing the fresh tender. It is evident that the petitioner secured an interim order by suppressing the material facts, misquoting and misleading the Court, particularly, by stating that the tender was opened on 16.12.2025, instead of 08.10.2025. It is settled proposition of law that if any person approaches this Court with unclean hands and by suppressing the material facts, they are not entitled for any relief, muchless, the relief as prayed in the writ petitions. The factum of said suppression is a matter of serious concern. An application under Article 226 would be refuted without a hearing on the merits or a rule nisi discharged, if it appears that the applicant has made a deliberate concealment of material facts, with a view to mislead the Court.

In Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P 6, an interim order was obtained from court alleging the price fixed by government for foodstuffs was too low and uneconomical. But the real fact was that the price was fixed on agreement, which was suppressed. The Court dismissed the writ petition as also vacated the interim orders.

In All India State Bank ‘Officer’s Federation v. Union of India8, the court strongly disapproved the conduct of the petitioners infilling writ petition in a different High Court after filing a false declaration that no writ petition was filed earlier.

By applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, it is clear and categorical that, when the petitioners approached this Court claiming writ of mandamus, suppressing material fact or giving a misstatement of fact in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, hence they are debarred to claim relief of writ of mandamus, which is purely discretionary in nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the tender committee/authority altered the period of the tender in favour of the successful bidders, contrary to the terms of the tender

The petitioner’s further allegation that, notwithstanding his representation dated 10.12.2025, the tendering authority proceeded to award the contract in favour of the unofficial respondents on 16.12.2025 without considering his representation or addressing his queries, and that such action amounts to arbitrariness and a colourable exercise of power, is wholly without merit, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law. The fact remains that the petitioner’s representation was duly considered and appropriately answered. The contract was awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender, and with the consent of the majority of the qualified bidders, excluding the petitioner.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is an existing contractor in respect of the same tender contract or work and he was previously selected by the very same tender committee on the basis of drawal of lots. In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the action of the tender committee/ tender authority on the ground that the selection of the successful bidders either by drawal of lots or with the consent of majority of the qualified tenderers is contrary to the terms of the tender. Such a contention is unreasonable and untenable. It is well- settled that, in the absence of specific provisions in the tender conditions, the tendering authority is empowered to formulate or adopt well recognized procedures for the finalization and award of the tender. Therefore, drawal of lots as well as consent of majority of qualified bidders are the well recognized methods in post tender selection, if all the bidders are in same footing.

It is a settled proposition of law that a person who approaches this Court with unclean hands, suppresses material facts, or misleads the Court to obtain interim orders is not entitled to any relief, much less the relief sought by the petitioner in the present case.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any contractor who has been blacklisted by a tendering authority is WP_35483_2025 ineligible for consideration in any other tender, and that Respondent No. 6 cannot be selected merely on the basis of this Court’s order of suspension, is misconceived. It is a well-settled legal principle that an 10 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13802-13805 of 2019 dated 21.06.2019 WP_35483_2025 matters, relying on the catena of judgments of Supreme Court, more particularly, Tata Celluar v. Union of India11, wherein the Apex Court laid down six guidelines which are as follows: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does no sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.

The Apex Court also referred to various earlier judgments in Raunaq International Ltd. V. I.V.R. Construction Ltd12, Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Ltd13, Karnataka SIIDC Ltd v. Cavalet India Ltd 14, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd15, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair

In view of the reasons stated above, having participated in the bidding and after selected as successful bidder and qualified bidder, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the selection process of the tender committee by one writ petition or the other and it is contrary to the settled principle of law and the petitioner is not entitled to any 16 (2006) 11 SCC 548 17 (2007) 14 SCC 517 18 (2012) 8 SCC 216 WP_35483_2025 relief, as claimed in the writ petition, in view of the suppression of material facts and approaching this Court with unclean hands with malafide intention to stall the entire tender process, as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.