Gdx Security Solutions INDIA Private Limited vs. The State Of Ap

Tender Notification, dated 22.05.2025, came to be invited by Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC) - respondent No.2 herein for the works of “providing sanitation facilities in the institutions/hospitals under the control of Director of Secondary Health in the State of Andhra Pradesh”

According to the conditions of eligibility prescribed in the NIT, the bidder was required to submit the EPF and ESI registration Certificate (Clause 6.1.7). As per Clause 6.1.8 of the Tender conditions, the bidder was also supposed to submit the EPF/ESI/GST for any three years to support its experience. The petitioner was also required to-'submit copies of valid challans/returns of the corresponding financial/accounting years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. As per Clause 6.1.13 of the NIT the bidder was required to submit proof of payment of Professional Tax which was considered to be mandatory as per G.O.Ms.Mo.44 dated 09.09.2021 and was required to submit proof of payment of annual Professional Tax for the previous year for uploading the same and was required to produce the original when required. The petitioner considering itself eligible submitted its technical as also its financial bid with the official respondents. The technical bid of the petitioner was considered. However, the technical evaluation report was published in the 4. WA 998 2025 website of the official respondents calling for objections, if any, on the final technical valuation report, which objections were to be submitted before 31.07.2025. Insofar as the petitioner Is concerned its name figured at Serial No.9 of the said report, the shortfafis/clarifications and the decision of the technical evaluation committee was as under: SI.No. Name of the Firm/Bidder Package Shortfalls/Clarifications Decisions No.

M/s. Security Solutions India Private Limited GDX IV, V & VI

GDX Reply; We wish to clarify that our company was incorporated on 2nd January, 2006 under the name “GDX Facility & Management Services Private Limited." Subsequently, the name was changed to "GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited" on 20th November, 2023 to comply with Ministry^ of Home Affairs advisory. Our Corporate Identification Number (CIN) remains unchanged: U74920DL2006PTC144347 (refer Page Nos. 282-284). Hence, all documents under either name pertain to the same legal entity... We have submitted the Professional Tax paid challans since March 2023 to May 2025 (It can be verified with the submitted documents Page No. 849 to 877). We wish to clarify that the Registration Number of Professional Tax also remans unchanged and paid the challans in same code since March 2023 to till date. The participation was submitted under one firm’s name but the supporting documents, ESIC, EPF & PT registrations, belong to another firm that has since been closed.

GDX Reply; As stated above, the firm was renamed and not closed. "GDX hacility & Management Ser\4ces Private Limited" was renamed as "GDX Security Soluhons India Private Limited" on 20th November .2023. All statutory registrations (EPF, tSIC, PAN, Professional Tax, etc.) U74920DL2006PTC144347. Therefore, all submitted credentials valid under the unchanged CIN: remain

GDX Reply; The CIN U74920DL2006PTC1443 does not pertain to company. Our correct CIN is U74920DL2006PTC144347.” our By virtue of the final F?>ejectioin order, dated 10.08.2025, the petitioner was informed that its technical bid had been rejected. The rejection order, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, did not at all take into consideration the explanation rendered by the Appellant Company and was in fact a rejection order which was a mere reproduction of the earlier shortfalls that had been highlighted vide communication dated 30.07.2025.

Apart from this, it was sought to be urged that by virtue of an interim order dated 07.08.2025, the iearne Single Judge had directed respondent No.2 Corporation to pass speaking orders pursuant to the detailed explanation dated 30.07.2025, submitted by the petitioner to the objections raised by respondent No.2 and the said orders were required to be passed within a period of two weeks. EJefore we proceed further it would be apt to reproduce the order dated 07.08.2025, vi/hich came to be passed in the batch of petitions bearing W.P.Nos.21162, 21166 and 21159 of 2025: ",.. For the rea.sons stated by both the counsel, Respondent No. 2 Corporation is directed to pass speaking orders pursuant to the detailed explanation dated 30.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the objections raised by the 2nd respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Hovjever, respondents are at liberty to proceed further in terms of the tender notice. ...”

It is pursuant to the aforeTientioned interim order that, finally, the official respondents passed the order dated 10.08.2025, rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner appellant herein.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the official respondents in fact failed to comply with the interim directions and did not pass a speaking order as was otherwise required to be passed and did not consider the detailed explanation rendered by the appellant to the earlier communication dated 30.07.2025. It was stated that the rejection order was nothing but an exact reproduction of the earlier communication dated 30.07.2025 and since the same besides violating the directions dated 07.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, was also a totally non speaking order, failure to consider the explanation, it was urged, renders the rejection order unsustainable in law.

Learned Advocate General, Mr. Damrnalapati Srinivas, appearing for the official respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the order of rejection did not warrant any interference in law, inasmuch the interference, according to the settled principles of law by the High Court in exercise of its writ juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution would be justified only if the decision was arbitrary and irrational or was made for mala fide intended to favour someone. reasons WA 998 2025

In the instant case, it was urged that none of those conditions existed and therefore it was emphatically urged that since there were short falls which were rightly pointed out in the order of rejection, the same could not have been overcome even if a speaking order was passed by the authority concerned.

We have he^ard learned counsel for the parties. The power of judicial review of administrative action in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa'', it was held that if a decision relating to award of contract was bona fide and in public interest, the Court in exercise of the power of 14. judicial review would not interfere even if there v/as a procedural aberration or error in asjsessment causing prejudice to tenderer.

In Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Brihan ilViymibas Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST)^, it was held that the writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer ursiess something very gross or palpable was pointed out. It was further held that the Court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contracts which would set at naught the entire tender process which would net be in public interest as initiating fresh tender '(2007) 14 see 517 ^2023 see Online Se 671 WA 2025 process may consume a lot of time and cause loss to the public exchequer, in case the Court directed issuance of a fresh tender notice. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin international Airport Ltd.,^ it was held that even if some defect was found in the decision making process the Court ought to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with caution and to exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court emphasized that it is the larger public interest in mind to decide as to whether intervention was called or not. In paragraph 7, it was held;

"7. ...The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision, it can fix its own terms of Invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasor^s, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lov/est. But the State, its corporations. Instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards; and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala tides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. 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 court must exercise its discretionaiy power 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. The court shoula always keen the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming ^(2000) 2 see 617 WA 998 2025 public interest intervene. ” }Quires interference, the court should On a perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it appears that the learned Single Judge \fvas of the opinion that the burden lay on the bidder to scrupulously comply with every requirement of the tender conditions and that the authority inviting bids was not obliged to process hundreds of documents in each bid and to take note of every minute change, inoluding the factum of the change in the name of the company in November 2023 from GDX Facilities and Management to G DX Security Services.

The learned Single Judge proceeded ot accept the contention of the learned Advocate General thiat in the event of change of name of the petitioner’s company it was mandatory under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, to have its effect within the prescribed period of time in respect of the accounts and IDs under the Scheme of 1952 and Regulations of 1950. It also proceeded to hold that it was .mandatory on the part of the Company to send intimation on any change of such particulars within 15 days of such change to the Regional Commissioner by registered post. The learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the bidder i.e. the petitioner did not satisfy the terms and conditions relating to the technical bid and therefore continued with the old identification numbers in respect of ESIC and ESI despite the fact that tie riamie of the petitioner’s Company had got WA 998 2025 changed from November 2023 onwards, which was contrary to law and more specifically contrary to the statulory regulations. On a perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it can clearly be 17. seen that the learned Single Judge has sought to justify the order of rejection •• even when no such discussion can be of the technical bid of the petitionser culled out from the order of rejection passed by the official respondents. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge by virtue of the order dated 07.08.2025, had clearly required the authorities to pass a speaking order pursuant to the submission of th€i explanation dated 30.07.2025 by the petitioner ~ appellant herein which was totally ignored by the official respondents.

While the ratio of the judgments on the point indicate that Courts should exercise restraint and caution, and only when it is overwhelmingly in public interest that the Courts should interfere in a case when the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable as he^d by the Apex Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of Indila^, in the present case, what is required to be considered, is that despite calling for objections and clarifications and despite the fact that an explanation vms. rendered by the appellant to the official respondents and there being a clear direction issued against the official respondents to pass a speaking order., based upon the explanation so rendered, the rejection order was passed, which was not only a non-speaking "(2020) 16 see 489 WA 998 2025 order but also an exact reproduction of the earlier communication dated 30.07.2025. 20. Whether the explanation rendered to the earlier alleged deficiencies would still justify the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner could be arrived at only if there was explanation had at all been considered or not. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the explanation was considered at all, and therefore on the face of it, the decision to reject the technical bid of the petitioner can be said to be notliing but arbitrary. ncugh material on record to show that the £1

The learned Single judge, in our opinion, committed an error in dismissing the Writ Petition inasmuch as it failed to notice the earlier order dated 07.08.2025, whereby it had directed the respondents to pass a speaking order, and proceeded to justify a non-spe.aking order by its own reasoning. This in our view was impermissible in law.

Learned Advocate General appearing for the State is not averse to the authority reconsidering the explanation rendered by the petitioner - appellant herein and passing speaking orders afresh, which he states would be passed within a period of two weeks.

For the reasons mentioned above this Writ Appeal is allowed, the judgment and order impugned dated 02.09.2025 and the order of rejection dated 10.08.2025 are hereby set aside. We direct the authorities to pass a WA 998 2025 fresh order after considering the explanation rendered by the appellant within a period of two weeks from today. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, including l.A.Nos.5, 6, 7 & 8 of 2025, shall stand disposed of. E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health & Family Welfare, State of -Andhra Pradesh, A.P Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation APMSIDC, At 1 PHYCARE Building, Plot No. 9, APIIC IT Park, Survey No. 49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalagiri- 522503, Andhra Pradesh.

The Chief Engineer, APMSIDC, At 1"* Floor, PHYCARE Building, Plot No. 9, APIIC IT Park, Survey No. 49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalagiri- 522503, Andhra Pradesh.

The Director of Secondary Health DSH, Andhra Pradesh.

One CC to Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, Advocate [QPUC]

One CC to Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, Advocate [OPUC] 7.Two CCs to GP for Medical Health & FW, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

One CC to Sri C. Sumon, Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to Smt. S. Pranathi, Advocate [OPUC] /

One CC to M/s. CKR Associates, Advocate (OPUC) 11.Two CD Copies St Floor, Cnr