APHC010169632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 8746/2025 Between: Xpert Facility Services ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt S. Pranati, learned standing counsel, appeared for respondents 2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. Notice in respect of respondents 4 to 7 is dispensed with since their rights and interests are not affected. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in disqualifying respondents 4 to 7 in the Tender No.T.N.No.2- 4/APSMIDC/Technical/2024-25, dated 27.11.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The 2nd respondent floated a tender for providing security services for the Hospitals/ Institutions under the control of the Director of Medical Education & Director of Secondary Health under Package-I vide notification in 2 Tender No.T.N.No.2-4/APSMIDC/Technical/2024-25, dated 27.11.2024 (Ex.P.1). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 and others participated in the Tender, referred to supra. After opening the technical bids, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.03.2025, indicating the alleged disqualifications of respondents 3 to 6 and thereafter, a comprehensive representation dated 28.03.2025 was submitted. He also would contend that without considering the objections, the respondents 2 and 3 are proceeding to finalize the tender. Learned counsel would also submit that in respect of the 7th respondent, objections will be raised by tomorrow. 5. Learned standing counsel would contend that Clause No.6.19 of the tender notification enables the tenderer to cancel the tender in respect of misrepresentation/improper response before or after awarding the tender. Learned counsel would submit that the Committee has finalized the tender however, LOA has not been issued in favour of the successful tenderer. 6. Clause 6.19 speaks about the disqualification of the bidder. a) Any misrepresentation/improper response may lead to disqualification of the Bidder. b) In case it is found during evaluation or at any time before signing of the Agreement or after its execution and during the period of subsistence thereof, that one or more of the eligibility conditions have not been met by the Bidder, or the Bidder has made material misrepresentation, or has given any materially incorrect or false information, the Bidder shall be disqualified forthwith if not yet appointed as the Service Provider either by issue of the LOA or entering into of the Agreement c) If the Bidder has already been issued the LOA or has entered into the Agreement, as the case may be, the same shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained therein or in this tender, be liable 3 to be terminated, by a communication in writing by the Client without the Client being liable in any manner whatsoever to the Applicant, as the case may be. In such an event, the Client shall forfeit and appropriate the performance Security and also pre-estimated compensation and damages payable to the Client as mutually agreed for, inter alia, time, cost and effort of the Client without any other right or remedy that may be available to the Client. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner made three different representations dated 24.03.2025, 25.03.2025 and 28.03.2025 about the alleged disqualifications regarding the respondents 4 to 6. 8. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out the alleged disqualification of the 7th respondent and would contend that a representation will be made by 04-04-2025. 9. Thus, as seen from the clause extracted supra, the tenderer reserved the right to cancel the tender, before or after, in case of misrepresentation, if any. There is no dispute regarding the representations made by the petitioner pointing out certain disqualifications. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the objections of the petitioner before finalizing the tender, following the Rules, to avoid further future litigations. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date: 03.04.2025 KA 4 135 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.8746 OF 2025 Date: 03.04.2025 KA