IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV^^^J^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12596 OF 2023 -O' Vf-:^ o V Between: Koduri Suresh Babu, S/o. K Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 59 years Occ. Diet Contractor, R/o. H.No.5-108, J P N Nagar Mivaour’ Hyderabad- 500049. ...Petitioner ; AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by it's Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapud’i Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Diet ManagerTiptGommittee(DDMC), Rep. by it's Chairman / Joint Collector, 6/o. The District Collector's Office Guntur Guntur District. 3. The Government General Hospital, Rep. by it's Superintendent Member Convener, DDMC, Guntur. 4. The District Medical and Health Officer, Guntur District, Guntur. 5. M/s Sahasra, Koppunuru Village, Macharla Mandal, Palnadu District. 6. M/s Anu Mess and Bakery, H.N6. 6JVW plus 8VF, Prakasam Rd, GanganammaPeta, Ithanagar, Tenali, Guntur District. 7. M/s K.BeeranKutty, Diet Contractor, 24 Kola Street, Tirupati District Tirupati. 8. S.Srinivasa Rao, S/o venkaiah; Aged about 56 Years, Occ Diet Contractor, R/o House No. 38; State Bank Employees Colony JKC College, Guntur, Guntur District 9. Y.Koteswara Rao, S/o Uma Maheswara Rao, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Diet Contrcator, R/o Flat No. 402, Krishna Estates, 7*^ Cross Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony, Vijayawada, NTR District. -cum- Near ...Respondents Pstition undsr Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying ; that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue ap appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of declaring the action of the Srdrespondent in issuing diet contract vide Rc.No.1581/DIET- HDS/2021- 23 dated.21.03.2023 infavour of the 5*^ respondent as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the tender of the petitioner for supply of diet in Government General Hospital, Guntur pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 27.02.2023 by setting aside the diet contract vide Rc.No.1581/DIET-HDS/2021-23dat^d.21.03.2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2H Petition under Section 151 ^ CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the diet contract vide Rc.No.1581/DIET- HDS/2021-23 dated.21.03.2023 and restore the earlier position of Diet supply prior to 21.03.2023 issued by the 3'^^ respondent infavour of the 5 th respondent. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by it's Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. a . 2. The District Diet Managempt Cpmmittee(DDMC), Rep. by it's Chairman / Joint Collector, O/o. The District Collector's Office Guntur Guntur District. ’ iJ?® Government General Hospital, Rep. by it's Superintendent -cum- Member Convener, DDMC, Guntur. 4. The District Medical and Health Officer, Guntur District, Guntur. AND 1. Koduri Suresh Babu, S/o. K Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 59 Occ. Diet Contractor, R/o. H.No.5-108, J P N Nagar, Miyapur Hyderabad-500049. / ^ ...Petitioners/Respondents years, 4 ...Respondent/Petitioner M/s Sahasra, Koppunuru Village, Macharla Mandal, Palnadu District. M/s Anu Mess and Bakery, N ’No. 6JVW plus 8VF, Prakasam Rd, GanganammaPeta, Ithanagar, Tenali, Guntur District. M/s K.BeeranKutty, Diet Contractor, 24 Kola Street, Tirupati District Tirupati. ’ S.Srinivasa Rao, S/o venkaiah. Aged about 56 Years, Occ. Diet Contractor, R/o house no. 38, State Bank Employees Colony Near JKC College, Guntur, Guntur District Y.Koteswara Rao, S/o Lima Maheswara Rao, Aged about 63 years Occ. Diet Contrcator, R/o Flat No. 402, Krishna Estates, 7“^ Cross ’ Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony, Vijayawada, NTR District. 2. 3. 4. 5. V ...Respondents/Respondents (R6 & R5 are not necessary party in this petition) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated WP.No. 12596/2023 dismiss the-writ petition. 10-05-2023 in lA NO: 3 OF 202.-^ Petition under Section ,; 1^51 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file Additional Affidavit and to receive material papers in Writ Petition No. 12596 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K M KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 fo 4: GP FOR MED HEALTH FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: M/s JYOTHI RATNA Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI CHALA KODANDA [ SR. COUNSEL FOR O UDAYA KUMAR & ANUMOLU RAM The Court made the following order: APHC010239512023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12596/2023 Between: 1.KODURI SURESH BABU, S/0. K VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. DIET CONTRACTOR, R/0. H.NO.5-108,J P N NAGAR, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD- 500049. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY IT’SPRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH MEDICALAND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P. 2.THE DISTRICT DIET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEEDDMC, REP. BY IT'S CHAIRMAN / JOINT COLLECTOR, 0/0. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR'S OFFICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL, REP. BY IT'S SUPERINTENDENT -CUM-MEMBER CONVENER, DDMC, GUNTUR. 4.THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 5.M/S SAHASRA, KOPPUNURU VILLAGE, MACHARLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6.M/S ANU MESS AND BAKERY, H.NO. 6JVW PLUS 8VF, PRAKASAM RD, GANGANAMMAPETA, ITHANAGAR, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 7.M/S K BEERANKUTTY, DIET CONTRACTOR, 24 KOLA STREET, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 8.S SRINIVASA RAO, , S/0 VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. DIET CONTRACTOR, R/0 HOUSE NO. 38, STATE BANK EMPLOYEES COLONY, NEAR JKC COLLEGE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 9.Y KOTESWARA RAO, S/0 UMA MAHESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC. DIET CONTRCATOR, R/0 FLAT NO. 402, KRISHNA ESTATES, 7TH CROSS, SRINIVASA NAGAR BANK COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rdrespondent in issuing diet contract vide Rc.No.1581/DIET-HDS/2021-23 dated.21.03.2023 infavour of the 5th respondent as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the tender of the petitioner for supply of diet in Government General Hospital, Guntur pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 27.02.2023 by setting aside the diet contract vide Rc.No.1581/DIET-HDS/2021-23 dated.21.03.2023 and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the diet contract vide Rc.No.1581/DIET-HDS/2021-23 dated.21.03.2023 and restore the earlier position of Diet supply prior to 21.03.2023 issued by the 3rdrespondent infavour of the 5th respondent and to pass lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 10-05-2023 in WP No. 12596/2023 dismiss the writ petition and pass 3 lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file Additional Affidavit and to receive material papers in Writ Petition No. 12596 of 2023 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KM KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.JYOTHI RATNAANUMOLU 2.0 UDAYA KUMAR 3.GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri K.M. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well Sri Challa Kodanda Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the as Respondent No.5. 2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under: “....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring the action of the 3^^ respondent in issuing diet contract vide Rc.No.1581/DiET-HDS/2021-23 dated 21.03.2023 in favour of the 5"" respondent as iiiegai, contrary to iaw, arbitrary and vioiation of principies of naturai Justice and consequentiy direct the respondent authorities to consider the tender of the petitioner for supply of diet in Government General Hospital Guntur pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 27 02 2023 by setting aside the diet contract vide Rc.No.1581/DIET- HDS/2021-23 dated 21.03.2023 and to such other... ’’ 4 I Submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner: 3. The District Diet Managing Committee issued tender notification on 27.02.2023 (Ex.P1) inviting sealed tenders for supply of diet to in-patients and duty doctors in the Government General Hospital, Guntur; that the tender conditions would stipulate that the tender is a two-covers based process wherein Cover-1 will contain Technical Bid and Cover-2 will contain Financial Bid; that marks criteria has been introduced in terms of Clause 5 of the tender condition; that the 2^^ cover (Financial Bid) would be opened in respect of nd such bidders who cross the threshold of 70 marks; in other words, the 2 Cover of the bidders who secured 70 marks and above will alone be opened; that proviso to Clause 4(B)(b) stipulates that in evaluating this criteria, the decision of the Respondent No.2 (District Diet Management Committee) shall be final and binding on the tenderer. It is further submitted that about six bidders have participated and all the bidders got qualified in the tender process by securing 70 marks and above; that about four bidders secured 100 marks; one of the bidder (M/s Anu Mess and Bakery-Respondent No.6) secured 91 marks and another bidder (M/s Sahasra-Respondent No.5) secured 90 marks; and that the Respondent No.2, after verifying the evaluated bids of all the tenderers had issued deit contract in favour of Respondent No.5 vide Rc.No.1581/DIET-HDS/2021-23 dated 21.03.2023 (Ex.P2). 3.1. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner is the existing contractor; that all the bidders have quoted the same price for supply of food which is Rs.72/- per person; that the Writ Petitioner contends that the 5 % proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the Respondent No.5 is arbitrary and illegal in as much as the said Respondent No.5 did not directly comply with all the tender conditions. 3.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 has relaxed the tender conditions with an intention to favour the Respondent No.5 in as much as the Respondent No.5 is not having proper experience; that Respondent No.5 does not have GST Clearance; and that the Respondent No.5 does not have the Income Tax Clearance. 3.3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings issued by the Director of Medical Education dated 10.03.2023 bearing Rc.No.Spl/Peshi/2023 and submit that by the said proceedings the Director of Medical Education has made it mandatory for the contractors to secure the latest GST Registration Certificate and GST Clearance Certificate for the last five years. 3.4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also taken this Court to the other documents relating to the experience certificate of the Respondent No.5 (EX.P5, etc.). 3.5. It is further submitted that vide order dated 10.05.2023 a learned Single Judge of this Court (My Predecessor) was pleased to suspend the impugned proceeding dated 21.03.2023; that the unofficial Respondent No.5 has challenged the interim order in Writ Appeal bearing Writ Appeal No.488 of 2023; that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.05.2023 has 6 suspended the interim order passed by this Court dated 10.05.2023; that the Petitioner herein had challenged the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.488 of 2023 dated 08.05.2023 by way of S.L.P(Civil).No.11459 of 2023; and, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had disposed of the said S.L.P. vide order dated 29.05.2023 directing this Court to expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition without waiting for the decision in the Writ Appeal (W.A.No.488 of 2023). 3.6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Asraya Caterers v. State of AP : 2022 SCC Online AP 333 (Writ Petition No.26767 of 2021 and batch dated 15.02.2022). He has placed reliance on paragraphs 15 and 20 of the said judgment to submit that not furnishing of the documents stipulated in the tender condition is fatal to the bidder. Submissions of learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: 4. Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, while reverting to the contents of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3, has drawn the attention of this Court to the tender conditions, particularly tender condition bearing Clause 4(B)(b) and would submit that for the purpose of evaluating the criteria, the decision of Respondent No.2 shall be final and binding on the tenderers. He would submit that the marks that were fixed in tender condition No.5 are only for the purpose of qualifying the bidders, but the said marks do not represent counter any 7 w merit as such. The threshold is fixed at 70 marks and any bidder who crosses the said threshold would be considered for final evaluation. The final evaluation is not a mechanical process to pick the bidder who has the highest marks. He would also submit that such of those tenderers who secured less than 70 marks shall be disqualified from participating in the tender process. He has drawn the attention of this Court to one of the tender condition which states that the short listing at this stage is on ‘pass or fail’ basis. He would submit that only those tenderers who secured 70 marks and above out of 100 marks, will be qualified for opening of Cover-2(Financial Bid). He would submit that filing of GST Certificate was not a tender requirement as per the tender document. Submissions of Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.5: 5. Sri Challa Kodanda Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5 has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.5. Firstly, he would submit that the contention of the Writ Petitioner that the Respondent No.5 is required to file Income Tax Clearance Certificate is completely erroneous and illegal in as much as the Income Tax Clearance Certificate under Section 230 of the Income Tax Act, is required to be filed by the Entity which is domiciled outside India; whereas, the Petitioner being an Indian Entity is not required to file Income Tax Clearance Certificate. He would further submit that the stipulation of Income Tax Clearance Certificate is found in 8 I G.O.Ms.No.325 MH & FW Department dated 01.11.20211 and not in the tender notification. 5.1. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that in so far as the GST Registration is concerned, the same is not required at the time of submitting the bid and the GST requirement would arise only at the time of billing. 5.2. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the proceeding of the Director of Medical Education and Commissioner, A.P.V.V.P., (Ex.P4) dated 10.03.2023 is subsequent to the issuance of the tender notification. He would submit that the tender notification was issued on 27.02.2023 (Ex.P1); whereas, the proceeding of the Director of Medical Education is dated 10.03.2023 and therefore the said requirement cannot be applied retrospectively against Respondent No.5. 5.3. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment M/s Agmatel India Private Limited v. M/s Resoursys Telecom and others : 2022 5 see 362 and relies on the paragraphs 24 to 26. He has also placed reliance on the judgment in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited V. Montecarlo Limited and another : (2022) 6 SCC 401 and relies on the paragraphs 45 to 47. 9 ANALYSIS: 6. This Court has perused the tender documents. This Court would find that the criteria of marks in Clause 5 of the tender condition is only for the purpose of ‘pass or fail’ basis where the threshold has been fixed at 70 out of 100 marks so as to be qualified for opening of the financial bid (Cover No.2). This Court would also notice the fact that the documents that are required under Clause 4(C) of the Tender Document is only the Income Tax Returns but not the Income Tax Clearance Certificate. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel that the said Income Tax Clearance Certificate relates to entities outside India and therefore the submission of the Writ Petitioner cannot be accepted. In so far as the GST is concerned, admittedly, the tender notification was issued on 27.02.2023. Whereas the proceedings of the Director of Medical Education stipulating a pre-condition to submit the latest GST Registration Certificate and the GST Clearance Certificate for the last five years, was not a tender condition in the present tender notification and therefore the contention of the Writ Petitioner that the Respondent No.5 has failed to submit the GST Registration Certificate and the GST Clearance Certificate for the last five years is unsustainable. This Court is also in an agreement with the submission made by Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 that the decision of DDMC is binding on the tenderers and that the marks fixed are only for the purpose of shortlisting based on 70 marks threshold but it is not a valuation of merit basing on the marks secured. In the present case, 10 I about three contractors have secured 100 (Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.6) have marks respectively. marks and two contractors secured 90 marks and 91 7. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that there i merit in the present Writ Petition. IS no 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/-B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri K M Krishna'Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to M/s Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri O. Udaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] AZ^PraderhSTf" 5. Two CD Copies of RAM •fe 1 HIGH COURT DATED:05/06/2025 ORDER ^2 ? AUG 2025^^ ^■^seAJcvss^ WP.No. 12596 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS