Madagani Sathaiah vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's bid was rejected on specific grounds, including lack of experience in government hospitals and non-submission of required documents such as annual financial statements, IT returns, and Form C (Government of Telangana) FSSAI License, as stipulated in clause a(B)(l)(a) and Tender Evaluation s(A)(ii) Criteria under Cl. 4(b) of the tender document. The Court noted that the petitioner, apart from claiming he was not furnished with cogent reasons, made no effort to address the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Consequently, the Court found no reason to fault the action of the official respondents in awarding the contract to the 7th respondent. The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.

Facts

The petitioner, Madagani Sathaiah, a diet contractor, challenged the proceedings of the District Diet Management Committee and the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Nalgonda. The petitioner had submitted a tender for supplying diet to the hospital for the period 2025-2027. While his name was in the shortlist, he was later disqualified. The disqualification notice was allegedly provided informally. The petitioner contended that the grounds for disqualification were fabricated and that he was not properly informed. He also argued that his tender was rejected despite satisfactory performance for 20 years and that the tender notification was contrary to a government order. The respondents, including the impleaded successful bidder, argued that the petitioner was disqualified due to lack of experience in government hospitals, insufficient financial statements, incomplete IT returns, and missing FSSAI license.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's tender for the diet supply contract was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of due process and natural justice, as argued by the petitioner, or whether the respondents acted within the terms of the tender document in rejecting the bid, as contended by the respondents? 2. Whether the tender notification for the diet supply contract was contrary to Government Order Ms.No.325 dated 01-11-2021 and thus illegal, as argued by the petitioner, or whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid was based on cogent reasons and adherence to tender conditions, as argued by the respondents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the disqualification proceedings were arbitrary, void-ab-initio, and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. He claimed he was not furnished with cogent reasons and that the grounds for disqualification were suspect. He also asserted that the tender notification was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01-11-2021, despite his 20 years of satisfactory performance. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, including the impleaded party, argued that the petitioner's bid was rejected after providing cogent reasons as per the tender document. They contended that the petitioner failed to produce mandatory documents, including proof of experience in government hospitals, audited annual financial statements for five years, IT returns for the preceding five years, GST returns for the required period, and Form C (Government of Telangana) FSSAI License. They maintained that the authorities acted as per the tender terms and no constitutional or legal rights were infringed.