1 APHC010180012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9194/2025 Between: K Suresh Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO 2. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW The Court made the following: APHC010179992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 9210/2025 Between: K Suresh Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO 2. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- The Writ Petitions are directed against the proceedings of the 3rd respondent issuing extension for supply of diet in SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupati (W.P. No.9194/2025) and Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupati (W.P. No.9210/2025). 2. It is contended that the petitioner is in to business for supply of diet in the Government hospitals. Pursuant to the tender notice dated 24.03.2023, issued by the 3rd respondent for supply of diet to the inpatients of the hospitals and the duty doctors. The petitioner participated in the tender process. In the said tender process, the petitioner was not considered and the unofficial respondent was awarded the contract for a period of two years with effect from 12.04.2023 to 11.04.2025. 3 3. Challenging the said awarding of contract in favour of unofficial respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in W.P. No.10920 of 2023. This Court has suspended the proceedings of issuance of award in favour of the unofficial respondent vide interim order dated 27.04.2023. Against the said interim order, the unofficial respondent filed Writ Appeal vide W.A. No.490 of 2023, wherein, the interim passed in the Writ Petition was suspended. Against the order passed in Writ Appeal, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of an appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the appeal directing the Writ Petition in W.P. No.10920 of 2023, be disposed of without waiting for the result in the Writ Appeal. 4. It is contended that pursuant to the said order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Writ Petitions (W.P. No.10920 of 2023 and W.P. No.10901 of 2023) were disposed of directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the ensuing tender/contracts on par with others without reference to the antecedents of the petitioner. 5. It is contended that in the light of the said decision of this Court, the respondent should have called for fresh tenders for awarding diet contracts. Without calling for the tenders, the respondents have issued impugned proceedings extending the contract for another year in favour of the unofficial respondent. It is contended that the said extension is in disregard to the guidelines framed under G.O.Ms. No.325 (HM & FW(M1) Department), dated 01.11.2011. Under the said G.O., the clause 11 of the tender conditions 4 specifies that the awarding of contract shall be for a period of two years, thereafter it can be extended by a period of one year, subject to satisfaction of the successful bidder. The said satisfaction has to be arrived at by the DDMC. The DDMC, it would consist of 6 members, one Convener & Joint Collector being the Chairman of the said committee. 6. Sri Chidambaram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the said committee has never been resolved to extend the lease period. It was an unilateral decision of the Joint Collector, to extend the lease. The impugned proceedings are in violation of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier ground of litigation. The learned counsel referring to earlier proceedings would urge that nowhere did the respondents have considered the earlier directions of this Court and further argues that the impugned proceedings refers to representation said to have been made by the unofficial respondent on 16.01.2025, however from the annexure Ex.P-8, which is the said representation shows that the same was received by the 3rd respondent on 10.03.2025 after the extension orders being passed. He thus argues that the impugned proceedings have been passed in order to overcome the directions of this Court. 7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in terms of the GOMs. No.325 (HM & FW(M1) Department), dated 01.11.2011, the initial award of contract will be for a period of two years, which can be extended for another period of one year, if District Diet Management Committee is satisfied with the performance of the contractor. 5 Invariably for the 4th year, fresh tenders have to be called for. Therefore, the respondents have taken a decision to extend the contract in favour of the unofficial respondents, for one more year. 8. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for unofficial respondent would argue that the award of contract in favour of the unofficial respondent is in accordance with the existing G.Os. Under the said G.O., the DDMC headed by the Joint Collector as Chairman has discretion to extend the contract in favour of the existing contractor for a period of one year, subject to satisfaction of the committee about the performance of the diet contractor. On being satisfied with the services rendered by the unofficial respondent, the extension of contract was awarded in favour of the unofficial respondent. It is further argued that since the respondents have taken a decision to extend the contract for one more year in terms of the G.O., the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation will not come into operation, as the direction was to permit the petitioner herein to participate in the ensuing tender process, since the said situation has not arisen, the question of non consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the directions of this Court would not arise. 9. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing , the learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court, the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Chairman of the District Diet Management Committee, dated 14.02.2025, recommending the case of the unofficial respondent for extension for one year. 6 10. Considered the rival submissions. 11. A perusal of the impugned proceedings would reflect that the extension was granted basing on the recommendations of the Joint Collector, Chairman of the District Diet Management Committee. As per the G.O.Ms. No. 325 (HM & FW(M1) Department), the order of extension has to be invariably by the District Diet Management Committee consisting of the Joint Collector as Chairman and District Medical and Health Officer, Chief Dietician of the Hospital, a Voluntary Organization, a Senior Physician and Pediatrician of the District Resident Medical Officer of Teaching, District Coordinator for Hospital Services etc., as members of the committee, should take a collective decision for granting extension. However, as seen from the impugned proceedings, no such decision of the DDMC, appears to have been taken. And a perusal of the recommendation of the Joint Collector dated 14.02.2025 also appears to be a unilateral decision and it does not reflect any consultation with the members of the Committee. It is pertinent to note that the respondents also do not dispute the fact that before granting of extension in favour of the unofficial respondent, no meeting of the DDMC was convened. 12. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order of extension granted in favour of the unofficial respondent is not in accordance with the procedure provided under the GO.Ms. No.325 (HM & FW (M1) Department), dated 01.11.2011. Therefore, the impugned proceedings in the Writ Petitions are liable to be set aside. 7 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned order(s). The respondents are therefore directed to call for fresh tenders for supply of diet contract in respect of the subject hospitals in these Writ Petitions. Till finalization of such tender process, the respondents shall permit the unofficial respondent to supply the diet to both the hospitals in the Writ Petitions. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:16.04.2025 MVK 8 119 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION Nos.9194 & 9210 of 2025 Date:16.04.2025 MVK