APHC010428872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT JUSTICE GANNAMANENl RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD • ?1R3Q. 21159, 21162 AND 21166 OF 2025 HON’BLE SRI WRIT PF_TITION Nos WRIT PETITION NO: 21830 OF 2025 Between; M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Komatineni Ravi Kumar Having : Limited., Rep by Its Authorized office at 29, Sant Nagar, East of person. Kailash, New Delhi. ...Petitioner AND Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, and Health and Family Welfare, A.P Secretariat 1. The State of Andhra Department of Medical buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and Infrastructure Development 2 The Andhra Pradesh Medical Services ' corporation (APMSIDC), At 1^' Floor, PHYCARE Building, Plot No. 9. Printing Press, No. 49, Near Visalandra APllC IT Park, Survey Autonagar, Mangalagiri- 522503, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Chief Engineer, APMSIDC, At Floor, PHYCARE Building, Plot APllC IT Park, Survey No. 49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, No. 9 Autonagar, Mangalagiri- 522503, Andhra Pradesh of Secondary Health (DSH), Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Director ...Respondents : Constitution of India praying that in the it filed therewith, the High Court may be Petition under Article 226 of the circumstances stated in the affidavit pleased to issue writ in the nature of, Lr.No. 137/APMSIDC/ an sppropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a a Writ of Mandamus declaring the r SANITATION/CR/SE(T)/2025-26 passed by Respondent no. 2 Respondents rei herein with Rejection Order vide dt. 10.08.2025 - rejecting the bids of the Petitioner 4/APMSIDC/Technical/2025-26, respect to T.N N0.2- 5/APMSIDC/Technical/2 T.N No.2- "L N No.2-6/APMSIDC/Technical/2n9^^ - as a...., app.a.on o.... .sc..,na.o violative of Articles 14 19(1) (g)and 300Aofthe Constitution of India and said Rejection order dt. 10.08.2025 accept and qualify the bids of respect to Tender Notifications vide No. T.N No.2- to consequently to set-aside the and direct Petitioner herein with 2-4/APMSIDC/Technical/2025-26T.N -26 and T.N No.2-6/APMS the Respondents to 5/APMSI DC/Technical/2025 DC/Technical/2025-26 I dt. 22.05.2025. lA NO: 1 OF 9091; Petition under Section 151 in the affidavit filed i pleased to stay ail further and awarding of contracts/LOA CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the writ petition. the High Court may be proceedings including scrutiny, evaluation of bids etc., with respect to Tender Notifications vide No.2.4/APMSIDC/Technica 5/APMSIDC/Technical/2025-26 and T.N No 2- 26, dt. 22.05.2025. T.N I/2025-26, T.N No.2- 6/APMSIDC/Technical/2025- Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH &FW LEARNED^ADVOCATrGENERrLVpPEAl?Mn''““''‘''''’*’’'®'^‘^'''AS SMT. S. PRANATHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF APHC010413992025 WRIT PETITION NO: 21159 OF 2025 Between: M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited., Having office at 29, Sant rep by Its Authorized person.. East of Kailash, New Delhi. Nagar Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. Komineni Venkatrao. ...Petitioner AND of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, Department, Secretariat,Velgapudi, 1. The State Health and Family Welfare Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. its officer at 1"' floor, Phycare Building, Plot 2. The APMSIDC, having No.9, APIIC IT Park, Autonagar, Mangalgiri, 3. The Managing Director Phycare Building, Plot No.9, APllC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. 4. The Director of Medical Education, Old Govt., General Hospital Tummalap alliKs lakshetram. Hanumanp et. Govt of Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Guntur District., rep by its Managing Director. APMSIDC., having its officer at 1 floor. Premises, Opp Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada-520002. ...Respondents 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Petition under Article circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be direction or a writ more particularly one pleased to issue an order or orders or in the nature of Writ lof Mandamus seeking to declare the action of the the technical bid submitted by the petitioner in 4/APSMIDC/Technical/2025-26, dated Respondents in rejecting relation to the Tender No.T.N.No.2- arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the well-established principles 22.05.2025as and consequently direct the 2"'" Respondent to financial bid submitted by the Petitioner. consider the technical bid and lA NO: 1 OF 9()'?R Petition under Section 151 CPC >n the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court pleased to grant stay of ail further proceedings in pursuance of the subject en er ,n TenderNo.T.N,No.2-4/APSMIDC/Technical/2025 22.05.2025 including finalization of the Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. Counsel for the Respondent No. praying that in the circumstances stated may be -26,dated tenderer. B. VASANTHA LAKSHMI 1 : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH &FW APHC010414032025 WRIT PETITION NO: 21162 OF 909*; Between: M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Nagar, Private Limited, Having office at 29, Sant person.. East of Kailash, New Delhi. Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. rep by Its Authorized Komineni Venkatrao. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The APMSIDC, having its officer at 1 No.9, APIIC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District., rep by its Managing Director. 3. The Managing Director APMSIDC, having its officer at 1 Phycare Building, Plot No.9, APIIC IT Park, Visalandra Printing Press,^ Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. 4. The Director of Medical Education, Old Govt., General Hospital Premises, Opp Tummalapalli Kalakshetram, Hanumanpet, Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada-520002. floor, Phycare Building, Plot floor, Survey No.49, Near ...Respondents 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 to issue an order or orders or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the action of the Respondents in rejecting the technical bid submitted by the relation to the Tender No.T.N.No.2- 5/APSMIDC/Technical/2025-26, dated 22.05.2025as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the well-established principles and consequently direct the 2"^ Respondent to consider the technical bid and financial bid submitted by the P^itioner. petitioner in lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the subject tender Tender 22.05.2025 including finalization of the tenderer. No.T.N.No.2-5/APSMIDC/Technical/2025-26,dated in Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. B. VASANTHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 ; SRI DAMMALAPATI SRINIVAS, LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SMT. S. PRANATHI APHC010414012025 WRIT PETITION NO: 21166 OF 2025 Between: M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited., Having office at 29, Sant rep by Its Authorized person.. East of Kailash, New Delhi., Nagar, Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. Komineni Venkatrao. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. floor, Phycare Building, Plot 2. The APMSIDC, having its officer at 1 No.9, APllC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District., rep by its Managing Director, having its officer at floor. Survey No.49, Near 3. The Managing Director, APMSIDC. Phycare Building, Plot No.9, APllC IT Park, Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar. Mangalgiri, Guntur District. 4. The Director of Medical Education, Old Govt., General Hospital Opp Tummalapalli Kalakshetram, Hanumanpet, Govt of Premises, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada-520002. ...Respondents 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 to issue an order or orders or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the action of the Respondents in rejecting the technical bid submitted by the petitioner in relation to the Tender No.T.N.No.2- 22.05.2a25as arbitrary, illegal and 6/APSMIDC/Technical/2025-26, dated contrary to the well-established principles : to consider the technical bid and and consequently direct the 2"" Respondent financial bid submitted by the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 202.^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the subject tender in TenderNo.T.N.No.2-6/APSMIDC/Technical/2025-26,dated 22.05.2025 including finalization of the tenderer. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. B. VASANTHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW counsel tor the Respondent Nos,2 to 4 ; SRI DA!V1MALApA~I SRlNiVA<^ LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL APPEARING ON ' SMT. S. PRANATHI BEHALF OF The Court made the following Common order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI **** WRIT PETITION NO: 21830 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited.,, Rep by Its Authorized person., Komatineni Ravi Kumar Having office at 29, Sant Nagar, East of kailash. New Delhi ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health and Family Welfare, A.P Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and three others ...Respondents WRIT PETITION NO: 21159 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited.,, Having office at 29, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi., rep by Its Authorized person., Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. KomineniVenkatrao. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat,Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and three others. ...Respondents WRIT PETITION NO: 21162 OF 2025 Between: 1. GDX SECURITY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Having office at 29, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi., rep by Its Authorized person., Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. Komineni Venkatrao. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat,Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and three others. ...Respondents WRIT PETITION NO: 21166 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited.,, Having office at 29, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi., rep by ItsAuthorized person., Kom.atineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. KomineniVenkatrao. ...Petitioner AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD IWRIT PETITION Nos.21830. 21159. 21162 & 21166 of 20?*^ % 02.09.2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 21830 OF 2025 Between; 1. M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited.,, Rep by Its Authorized person., Komatineni Ravi Kumar Having office at 29, Sant Nagar East of Kailash, New Delhi ...Petitioner AND 1^. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Medical and Health and Family Welfare, A P Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and three others ...Respondents WRIT PETITION NO: 21159 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited. Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi Having office at 29, rep by Its Authorized person., ( / o/ u. rxuiTiiiieni Vei iKcsii'ciu. i XCi V I f\L4 i i icSi I O ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat.Velgapudi, Amaravati’ Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and three others. WRIT PETITION NO: 21162 OF 2025 ...Respondents Between; tGDX SECURITY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Having office at 29, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi., rep by Its Authorized person. Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. Komineni Venkatrao. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP. Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat.Velgapudi. Amaravati District, Andhra Pradesh and three others. Guntur ...Respondents WRIT PETITION NO: 21166 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited.,, Having office at 29 Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi., Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. KomineniVenkatrao. rep by ItsAuthorized person.. ...Petitioner 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat,Velgap udi, Amaravati, Guntur District,Andhra Pradesh and three others. ...Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 02.09.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? 2. 3. GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department,Secretariat,Velgapudi, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Amaravati, Guntur District,Andhra Pradesh and three others. ...Respondents Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing through online on behalf of Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21830 of 2025; Smt. B. Vasantha Lakshmi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.21159, 21162 & 21166 of 2025 ! Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for APMSIDC Counsel for Respondents: < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. [(1995) 1 see 478] APHC010428872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 21830 OF ?n9t; RAMAKRISHNA Between: ...Petitioner AND 522503, Andhra Pradesk Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalagiri- 9 APIIc''lTV^a*‘T''' PHYCARE Building, Plot No Mangalagiri-5225o"3‘:";'n'dhra pfad" sh 4. The Director of Secondary Health DSH, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: JAWAJI SARATH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL CHANDRA HEALTH FW 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 21159 OF 209R Between: 1. M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi., i , Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. KomineniVenkatrao. Having office at 29, rep by Its Authorized person.. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat,Velgapudi Amaravati Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The APMSIDC, having its officer at floor, Phycare Building Plot No 9 APIIC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press Mangalgiri, Guntur District., rep by its Managing Director. 3. The Managing Director, , APMSIDC., having its officer at 1st floor Phycare Building, Plot No.9, APIIC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. 4. The Director of Medical Education, Old Govt., General Hospital Premises, Opp Tummalap alliKs lakshetram, Hanumanp et. Govt of Andhra Pradesh' Vijayawada-520002 Autonagar, ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: B VASANTHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH WRIT PETITION NO: 21162 OF 2025 FW Between: I^GDX SECURITY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Having office at 29, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi., rep by Its Authorized person. Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. Komineni Venkatrao. ...Petitioner AND C ^ Principal Secretary Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat,Velgapudi, Amaravati, District, Andhra Pradesh. Guntur 3 2. The APMSIDC, having its officer at 1st floor, Phycare Building, Plot No.9, APIIC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District., rep by its Managing Director. 3. The Managing Director APMSIDC, having its officer at 1st floor, Phycare Building, Plot No.9, APIIC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. 4. The Director of Medical Education, Old Govt., General Hospital Premises, Opp Tummalapalli Kalakshetram, Hanumanpet, Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada-520002. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: B VASANTHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW WRIT PETITION NO: 21166 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. GDX Security Solutions India Private Limited.,, Having office at 29, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi., rep by ItsAuthorized person., Komatineni Ravi Kumar, S/o. KomineniVenkatrao. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,Secretariat,Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District,Andhra Pradesh. 2. The APMSIDC, having its officer at 1st floor, Phycare Building, Plot No.9, APIIC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District., rep by its Managing Director. 3. The Managing Director, APMSIDC., having its officer at 1st floor, Phycare Building, Plot No.9, APIIC IT Park, Survey No.49, Near Visalandra Printing Press, Autonagar, Mangalgiri, Guntur District. 4. The Director of Medical Education, Old Govt., General Hospital Premises, Opp TummalapalliKslakshetram, Hanumanpet, Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada-520002. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: B VASANTHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOs: 21830. 21159, 21162 & 21166 OF 2025 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing through online on behalf of Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21830 of 2025; Smt. B. Vasantha Lakshmi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.21159, 21162 & 21166 of Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General appearing on 2025; behalf of Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for APMSIDC. 2. The prayer sought in the Writ Petition (W.P.No.21830 of 2025) is as under; For the aforesaid reasons, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be oleased to issue .on o ariy a Vvxit in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring 137/APMSlDC/ nnrooriate writ or order or direction more particul Order vide Lr.No. Rejection SANITATION/CR/SE(T)/2025-26, dt. 10.08.2025 passed by Respondent no. 2 Respondents rejecting the bids of the Petitioner herein with respect to T.N No.2-4/APMSIDC/Technical/2025-26, No.2-5/APMSlDC/Technical/2025-26 and 6/APMSIDC/Technical/2025-26 as illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and to consequently to set-aside the said Rejection order dt. 10.08.2025 and direct the Respondents to accept and qualify the bids of Petitioner herein with respect to Tender Notifications vide T.N No. 2-5/APMSIDC/ the T.N No.2- T.N 14 No.2-4/APMSI DC/Technical/2025-26, T.N. Technical/2025-26 and T.N No.2-6/APMSIDC/Technical/2025-26, dt. 22.05.2025 and to pass such other order/s to as this Hon'ble deem fit and proper in the interest of Court may justice and equity. Submissions of the Writ Petitioner; 3. The Writ Petitioner is a contractor who provides sanitation services to various Hospitals. In response to the Tender Notification dated 22.05.2025, the Writ Petitioner had also submitted its Technical Bid and Financial/Price 5 Bid. Technical Bid was opened on 02.07.2025. On 30 07 2025 Respondent No.2 had issued the certain shortfalls/clarifications/queries vide Final echnical Evaluation Report dated 30.07.2025 to the Writ Petitioner the other tenderers, and as well as on the same date, the Writ Petitioner has submitted the clarifications vide Proceeding dated 30.07.2025 (Ex.P.3) 4. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, submitted that after submission of learned Senior Counsel has further ^ clarification on 30.07.2025, the Managing Director of Respondent No.2 vide Impugned Proceeding dated had indicated to the Writ Petitioner that tender 10.08.2025 the Technical Bid has not satisfied the Vide Proceeding dated 11.08.2025 conditions/eligibility criteria. Bid Finalization Committee had , the ...., „ considered all the bids and indicated Writ Petitioner that the bid of the Writ Petitioner i V & VI are treated to the in respect of Package Nos.IV, Thereafter, the Price Bids of the as ‘Non-responsive’. Bidders who got qualified in the Technical Bid Finalization Committee has listed were also considered. The Bid -out the successful Bidders iin respect of Package Nos. IV, V & VI. Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court to through the details of the shortfalls I projected by the Respondents and clarifications submitted by the Writ Petitioner that, initially the registered • At the outset, he would submit name of the Writ Petitioner’ s company is “GDX The Writ Petitioner has name as “GDX Security Solutions India Limited" with effect from 20.11.2023 (Ex. P.8). The shortfalls the Respondents are noted herein; Facility & Management Services Private Limited”. changed the registered Private as indicated by 0) >- d O 0) c 2 Shortfalls/ Clarifications 00 O) o ns E E CO w o ns .b 2 LL o ns OJ Q. Q 09. M/s GDX IV, V 1. Defaulter in ESIC Payment, Contribution default in UP State as per UP ESIC Portal. 2. Professional Tax paid challans with Security Solutions India Private Limited Not & qualified VI 6 new firm name from Feb-2025 to Last one year challans not May-2025, professional tax submitted. 3. 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. 4. (CIN No. U74920DL2006PTC1443) 5. The Official Respondents have indicated about four shortfalls which are indicated in the table above. In respect of Shortfall No.1, the Writ Petitioner has submitted that they have already submitted the ESIC paid challans from April, 2021 to December. 2024 without any gap and default. It stated that in respect of RO Kanpur region, the Writ Petitioner had earlier IS r^'f ^ r> T f -j r’' i % ^ 'T^ y I 4.V I y < Wl t r-i rilusian Aeronauiics L « ITO !! ! HiOKJ tv-/ Ct • M and PPGCL from November 2021 to September, 2022, and thereafter, the ESIC code was not surrendered/closed after completion of the projects since the Writ Petitioner has anticipated the renewal of the contract. It is submitted that since the code was not surrendered or closed, it appeared on the web site that the Writ Petitioner is at default. In this regard, the Writ Petitioner has certified that it is not at default in ESIC payment. Insofar as the Professional Tax paid challans, the Writ Petitioner submits that the Corporate Identification Number (CIN) has remained unchanged, despite the fact that the Writ Petitioner’s company name was changed with effect from 20.11.2023. It is stated that the Professional Tax was paid since March, 2023 upto May, 2025, which can be verified from the documents which are already submitted (Tax paid Challans). Insofar as the other two shortfalls are concerned, they also relate to the confusion that got created on account of the change of the name from November, 2023. Since the certificates, bills and challans prior to November, 2023 are carried with the old name of the Writ Petitioner and from 7 November, 2023 onwards, it had the new name; however, in respect of the some of the accounts and I.Ds, it appears that the Writ Petitioner has continued the same I.Ds under the old name. 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New Horizons Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others : [(1995) 1 SCO 478]. He has placed reliance on Para Nos. 17 to 23. This Court has perused the contents of the above said paragraphs. Having considered the same, this Court is of the opinion that the reliance placed by the Writ Petitioner, does not have any relevance and they would not support the case of the Writ Petitioner. Submissions of the learned Advocate General: 7. Learned Advocate General has referred to the response of the Writ Petitioner dated 30.07.2025 (Ex.P.3) to the intimation of the shortfall by the Respondents. He would submit that, if there is a change in the name of the Writ Petitioner’s company, it is mandatory for such company under Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Scheme, 1952) and the Employees State Insurance (General Regulations), 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 1950) to have the changes effected within the prescribed period of time in respect of the accounts and IDs under the Scheme, 1952 and the Regulations, 1950. 8. Learned Advocate General referred to Clause 36A of the Scheme, 1952. Clause 36A of the Scheme, 1952 is usefully extracted hereunder: “36A. Employer to furnish particulars of ownership Every employer in relation to a factory or other establishment to which the Act applies on the date of coming into force of the Employees' Provident Funds (Tenth Amendment) Scheme, 1961, or is applied after that date, shall furnish [in duplicate] to the Regional Commissioner in Form No. 5A annexed hereto, [particulars of all the branches and departments, owners), occupiers, directors, partners, manager or any other person or persons who have the ultimate control over the affairs of such factory or establishment and also send intimation of any 8 change m such particulars, within fifteen days of such change to the Regional Commissioner by registered post and in such other manner as may be specified by the Regional Commissioner: Provided that in the case of any employer of a factory or other establishment to which the Act and the Family Pension Scheme 1971, shall apply the aforesaid Form may be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, for the purpose specified above. Provided further that above mentioned details shall be furnished by the employer in the electronic format also, in such form and manner, as may be specified by the Commissioner. (emphasis supplied) 9. As per the above said Clause, it is mandatory on the part of the company or the establishment to send intimation of any change in such particulars, within 15 days of such change, to the Regional Commissioner registered post. He would submit that this indispensable mandate by casts a nnn every estaDlisl to Regulation No. 10 (C) of the Regulations, 1950. The said Regulation No. 10 (C) is usefully extracted hereunder; i lo I icao caiow v-iiavVi? f u auo! JIJVJJI Os I i iwi it.. S V^UUi I 10-C. Intimation regarding change in particulars submitted at the time of registration of factory/establishment -The employer in respect of a factory/establishment to which this Act applies and to whom, a code number has already been allotted, shall intimate to the appropriate Regional Office, Sub-Regional Office, Divisional Office or Branch Office, any change in the particulars furnished in Form 01 at the time of registration of the factory/establishment within two weeks of such change, (emphasis supplied) 10. From the above extract, it appears that the intimation of change within two weeks of such change is mandatory. 11. Learned Advocate General would submit that the Bidder, the Writ Petitioner, did not satisfy the terms and conditions Technical Bid. He would also submit that it is inappropriate on the part of the namely relating to the 9 Writ Petitioner to state that the Writ Petitioner is continuing with the old Identification numbers in respect of ESIC and ESI despite the fact that the name of the Writ Petitioner’s company got changed from November, 2023 onwards is contrary to law, and therefore, the Official Respondents would not countenance the claim made by the Writ Petitioner, which is completely contrary to the statutory Regulation. He would submit that the Respondents would expect that the Bidder would submit such information which is in consonance with the provisions of the Statute and Regulations governing the respective fields. He would therefore submit that the clarifications give by the Writ Petitioner in response to the shortfalls/objections raised by the Official Respondents was rightly declared as ‘Non-responsive’ and such decision is neither arbitrary nor irrational. Analysis: 12. In the Minutes of the Bid Finalization Committee in its meeting held on 11.08.2025 (Ex.P.2), the history that is involved in the present Tender Notification had been briefly mentioned, which this Court had the occasion to It transpires from the said Proceeding that initially Tenders were invited for providing sanitation services in the Institutions/Ho spitals under the control of the Director of Medical Education and the Director of Secondary Health in the State of Andhra Pradesh vide Tender Notification dated 24.11.2024; that after the Bids were opened, the same were placed before the Bid Finalization Committee; and in its meeting held on 27.03.2025 and on 25.04.2025 the Bid Finalization Committee had considered the Report; that particularly in its meeting held on 25.04.2025, the Bid Finalization Committee had recommended for rejection and recall of all the Tenders and also to initiate action with respect to M/s Krishna Constructions; that the Bid Finalization Committee had requested the Committee which is constituted by the Government vide Government Memo No.2507666/H2/2024 HM&FW (H2) Department, dated 05.10.2024 to review the tender conditions and suggest improvements in the tender conditi^o^for the healthy competition and suggest peruse. 10 necessary modifications in the tender conditions; that the Committee constituted by the Memo dated 05.10.2024 has submitted its recommendations to the Government vide Proceeding dated 29.04.2025; that on 20.05.2025, the Government has considered the recommendations and approved the same; that basing upon the recommendations, the terms and conditions were prepared and the Tender was notified on 22.05.2025, which the present one. 13. In so far as the present tender is concerned, the Proceedings that had transpired would indicate that the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 had constituted Technical Bid Evaluation Committees (EVs) headed by the Superintending Engineers for evaluation of the Technical Bid; that the Technical Bids were opened on 02.07.2025 and the EVs headed by the Superintending Engineers had submitted the Report to the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2; that the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 had directed the Executive Director and the Chief Engineer (Electrical) to verify the Technical Evaluation Report submitted by the EVs headed by the Superintending Engineers. It is pertinent to mention herein that the whole State of Andhra Pradesh is divided into three Zones (Zone-1, II & III). For each Zone, separate packages have been conceived in respect of DME and DSH relating to the sanitation services in Medical Institutions (DMEs) and sanitation relating to the Hospitals (DSHs). The Technical Evaluation Committees have been formed into three teams headed by the Superintending Engineers, as indicated herein above. When the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 had entrusted the Reports submitted by the Superintending Engineers (Technical Bid Evaluation Committees) to the Executive Director, the Chief Engineer (Electrical), thereafter submitted a report to the Sanitation Committee. The Sanitation Committee has examined the report and thereafter had taken decisions with regard to the Technical Bids that were accepted and such of those Technical Bids which are treated as ‘Not qualified’. services 11 14. The Writ Petitioner is at SI.No.9 relating to the Package Nos. IV, V & VI, wherein about three shortfalls have been indicated as ‘Not qualified’, be ‘Not qualified’ and out of the 6 with the final decision It is to be stated that amongst 13 Bidders, 6 were held to about 5 Bidders, including the Writ Petitioner,,who have submitted their replies/clarifications on 30.07.2025 were held to be disqualified. 15. The above facts would indicate that the bids were considered at three levels. At the first level, the teams headed by Superintending have considered the bids and Engineers prepared a report. At the second level the teams headed by the Superintending Engineers have the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 submitted the report to and the Managing Director in turn has submitted for further scrutiny to the Executive Engineer (Electrical). After having considered Director and the Chief the said report, the Executive Director and the Chief Engineer (Electrical) has in turn submitted the report to the Sanitation Committee, The Sanitation Committee has shortfalls and intimated to the Writ Petitioner but the not only noticed Sanitation Committee has also considered the replies/clarifications given by the Bidders who initially treated as ‘Not qualified’. were 16. The facts on record would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has changed the name of the Company in November, 2023 (Ex.P.8) statutory provisions which The are relied on by the learned Advocate General considered by this Court. Clause 36A of the Scheme N0.IO-C of the Regulations, 1950 i are 1952 and Regulation impose a compulsive mandate on every establishment to intimate the change of the name of the establishment and get the necessary rectifications on record as well as on web-site to this extent This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Advocate General that such compliances are indispensable. Admittedly, the change of the name of the Writ Petitioner's Company has been effected in November, 2023, whereas even by May and June, 2025, when the bid submitted by the Writ Petitioner, the Writ Petitioner was did not apparently take 12 steps to have the names changed in consonance with the Statute (i.e., the Scheme, 1952 and the Regulations, 1950). Since the change has not been effected, the respective web-sites of ESIC and ESI had not only carried the name of the old firm but has also indicated the default. 17. When the State issues Tender Notifications, it is responded through this Court is of the every several Bidders. Having regard to the fixed time schedule opinion that the burden lies on every Bidder to scrupulously comply with requirement of the tender conditions. When the Employee is obligated to process hundreds of documents under each bid, it becomes a hercuiean task for the Employer to take note of every minute change unless it is clearly informed to the Employer. This apart, when the statute mandates the Bidders/Establishments to comply with the statutory provisions with regard to change of name, it becomes mandatory for such Establishments/Bidders comply with the same. It is not the responsibility on the part of the Employer to take note of and to relax any Tender Conditions for the to puroose of qualifying or disqualifying a bid. 18. In the present case, the Employer has noticed that the old name existed in respect of the accounts of ESIC and ESI at Kanpur. The Employer would only rely on the statutory provisions to see whether the name has been duly changed in accordance with the provisions of the Statute or not, and if such compliance has not been made by the Establishment, the Employer has the right to treat such bid either as ‘Non-responsive’ or ‘Disqualified’. Therefore, under the present circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision rendered by the Respondent Authorities in disqualifying the Writ Petitioner for the in the Impugned Order dated 10.08.2025, particularly, with regard to the Shortfall No.l relating to ESIC and ESI reasons cannot be held to be either arbitrary or perverse. 19. This apart, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner has made an another submission that the Impugned Order came to be passed 10.08.2025 by the Managing Director on 13 of the Respondent No.2 and communicated to the Writ Petitioner. Whereas the Bid Finalization Committee has notified that the bid of the Writ Petitioner has been rejected vide the Minutes dated 11.08.2025. By this submission, learned Senior Counsel states that the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 has pre-decided the outcome against the Writ Petitioner even before the Bid Finalization Committee had held the meeting. He would contend that it is the Bid Finalization Committee which can disqualify the Writ Petitioner but not the Managing Director. 20. The tender conditions would indicate that the Managing Director is the Tender Inviting Authority and the Tender Inviting Authority is empowered to communicate the decision with regard to the outcome. As the narration of the above facts would indicate that the report of the team headed by the Superintending Engineers at the first level and the report of the Executive Director and the Chief Engineer (Electrical) at the second level that rc^r\i\//r'io nfir'of • 11 loaLIwi I considered the snortfaiis as wei! as Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is procedural irregularity on the part of the Managing Director who is also the Tender Inviting Authority in intimating to the Writ Petitioner vide Proceeding dated 10.08.2025 about the disqualification of the Writ Petitioner. Even on this score, this Court is not in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. This apart, it cannot, also, be stated that there is non-application of mind on the part of the Respondents in mechanically rejecting the bid of the Writ Petitioner. As indicated above, the Technical Bid as well as the clarifications given by the Writ Petitioner with regard to the shortfalls had passed through the scrutiny of several Committees as indicated above. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned decision does not suffer from the vice of non-application of mind. friQ IV_/ the Writ t aiven uy 21. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.21830 of 2025 is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the W.P.No.21830 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, Writ Petitions bearing c=^'' 14 W.P.Nos.21159, 21162 & 21166 of 2025 which were filed earlier are also dismissed. No order as to costs. 22. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, OFFICER 1. One CC to Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Medical Health & FW High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to Smt. S. Pranathi, SC for APMSIDC (OPUC) 4. 9 L.R. Copies. 5. The Under Secretary Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi, u. The Secretary, A.P. Hig A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District. 7. Two CD Copies ,o n L.ourt Adv ates Ass lation, r jrt of :y: : w:. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 COMMON ORDER WP Nos. 21830, 21159,21162 AND 21166 OF 2025 • //S' 15 SEP 2025 ar m; Co/: a Current Section DISMISSING THE W.Ps WITHOUT COSTS