IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL Nos: 546 & 562 of 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 546 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 16.04.2025 passed in W.P.No. 9210 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between; qhLilf Partner, K. Md. Sharfudheen @ K. T 4-4-148, Nehru Nagar, Near Old jVothi Theatre, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District ^ ...Appellant/Respondent No.4 in WP AND 1. Kodun Suresh Babu, S/o. K. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 60 years Gun'tu?Dis^r?c/'^^^^°'^’ Mandal ...Respondent/Petitioner rep by its Princioal Secretarv Hp^iith 3. The District Diet Management Committee (DDMC) Rep by its TirupathmisS^°'*^^^°^’ ^'strict Collectors OffiL 4. The Government Maternity Hospital. Tirupathi rep by its Superintendent-cunt-Member Convener, DDMC Tirupathi Tirupathi. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to suspend the final order passed in W.P No.9210 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025, pending disposal of the above writ appeal Hon’ble Court. and passed by this Counsel for the Appellant: SRI UNNAM MURALIDHAR RAO LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SRI PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K. CHIDAMBARAM LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE WRIT APPEAL NO: 562 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 16.04.2025 passed in W.P.No. 9194 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: K m' Sharfudhee K. Sharief S/o. ^.Appellant/Respondent No.4 in WP Orr niJ Babu, S/O. K. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 60 years oSntuf Disthc^^^^'^’ ^ Mandal, ...Respondent/Petitioner Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfare Department, A. P., Secretariat ’ Amaravathi. Guntur District AND Velagapudi, 3. The District Diet Management Committee (DDMC), Rep by i Tirup^hmistricr^ ‘^'strict Collectors Office, its Tirupathi J 4. The SVRR Government General Hospital, rep by its Superintendent- cum-Member Convener, DDMC, Tirupathi. / ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to suspend the final order passed in W.P No.9194 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025, pending disposal of the above writ appeal Hon’ble Court. may be and passed by this Counsel for the Appellant: SRI UNNAM MURALIDHAR RAO LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SRI PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K. CHIDAMBARAM LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FAMILY WELFARE AND The Court made the following common judgment: APHC010231642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.Nos:-2 AT AMARAVATI &4 [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 546 of 2025 along with W.A.No.562 of 2025 W.A.No.546 of 2025:- M/s. K. Beeran Kutty ...Appellant Vs. Koduri Suresh Babu and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Pamarthi Kameswara Rao Advocate for Respondents Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, Kota, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare Sri Venkata Rama Rao CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE :6th May 2025 Per DHIRAJSINGH THAKUR.CJ fOrah: The present Writ Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order dated 16.04.2025 rendered in W.P.Nos.9194 & 9210 of 2025. The petitions filed by the petitioner/private respondent herein have been allowed and the decision with regard to extension in the contract period of the appellant for supplying diet to various hospitals has been set aside on the 2 -Si ground that the decision was not taken by respondent No.2 i.e., the District Diet Management Committee (for short, “D.D.M.C.”). 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:- The appellant was allotted a contract for supplying diet to various hospitals for a period of two years with effect from 16.04.2023 to 15.04.2025. It appears that the terms and conditions of the tender document envisaged an extension in the contract period beyond the two years period for which the contract had been allotted subject to the satisfaction with regard to the service of the Diet Contractor by the D.D.M.C. It is not out of place here to mention that the D.D.M.C. consists of the Joint Collector as the Chairman and seven others. After the contract period expired, it appears that based upon the recommendations of the Joint Collector, who was otherwise the Chairman of the D.D.M.C., the Superintendents of two hospitals, by virtue of proceedings dated 13.03.2025, granted extension for a period of one year. 3. The proceedings dated 13.03.2025 came to be challenged by the petitionerc who otherwise had been unsuccessful tenderers in the bidding process held in the year 2023 in which the appellant was declared as a successful bidder. The basis of the challenge was that the decision taken to extend the contract period by further one year was unsustainable inasmuch as the decision to extend the contract could be taken only by the D.D.M.C. and not by the Chairman alone. This argument found favour with the learned single Judge who set aside the proceedings impugned in the writ petitions 3 supra and further directed the official respondents to call for fresh tenders for supply of diet contracts in respect of the hospitals in question. It was further directed that till the tender process was finalized, the appellant herein would be permitted to supply the diet to the hospitals to which the appellant was supplying the diet. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant - Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao would submit that while the learned single Judge might have been right in holding that the decision was unsustainable inasmuch as it was taken unilaterally by the Chairman of the D.D.M.C., yet, the appellant did had an inherent right to seek consideration for extension of the contract period in terms of the tender condition No. 11 inasmuch as the services provided by the appellant were otherwise satisfactory and would have warranted an extension in the contract period. For facility of reference, clause 11(c) of the bid document relating to extension of the contract period is reproduced hereunder; “c. The Diet contract period will be for 2 years and extendable for one year if District Diet Management Committee (DDMC), satisfied with the service of Diet Contractor. Under any circumstances fresh tenders must be called for the 4‘^ year, well in advance." It was further stated that the fact that the services rendered by the appellant had been recognized that there was a move by the Chairman of the D.D.M.C. to order extension in the contract period. It was, therefore, urged that ordering the invitation of fresh tenders for supply of diet to the two hospitals in question took away not only the right of the appellant herein for extension but also took 4 away the right which was otherwise vested in the official respondents to consider, in terms of the tender conditions, the issue with regard to extension in the contract period. 5. We find sufficient force in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel - Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao that in case the learned single Judge had come to a conclusion that the decision to recommend extension was unsustainable on account of the same being an unilateral decision and not a decision taken by the D.D.M.C., which was otherwise envisaged in terms of the tender conditions, then sufficient free play in the joints ought to have been given the D.D.M.C. in terms of the tender conditions to take an appropriate call on that issue by a properly constituted D.D.M.C. 6. We are aware of the fact that the issue of quality diet to the patients in the hospitals is an issue which requires to be dealt with some sensitivity as the quality of diet and the nature and the type of service, which a contractor renders to the patients, is of utmost importance to not only the patients but also those who are concerned with the patients including the hospital administration. Therefore, the official respondents/D.D.M.C. ought to be given that freedom to decide as to whether the existing contractor needs to be given an extension or not. 7. Learned Senior Counsel - Sri K. Chidambaram, on the other hand, appearing for the petitioner, would, however, submit that the direction of the learned single Judge to resort to a fresh tendering process is a direction which 5 needs lo be sustained more so in view of the observations made by a learned single Judge of this Court in the previous round of litigation in W.P.Nos.10901, The said petitions were filed challenging the 10920 & 10945 of 2023. allotment of contract in favour of the appellant herein. 8. On a perusal of the judgment and order dated 10.05.2024 rendered in the aforementioned petitions, it can be seen that the following was the view expressed by the learned single Judge in para No.38, which is reproduced herein: “38. As discussed in the earlier paragraphs, this Court is not inclined to intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, since there is no blatant illegality and arbitrariness was pointed out. The Diet Contracts already awarded in favour of Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are not disturbed by this Court, conscious of the fact that this Court is not vested with the authority to intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless there is blatant illegality and arbitrariness pointed out.” In any case, the judgment in the previous round of litigation dated 10.05.2024 did not at all deal with the issue of extension in the period of contract in terms of the tender conditions. 9. Be that as it may, we allow the present Writ Appeals and modify the judgment and order to the limited extent that the official respondents/D.D.M.C. can take a call on the issue as to whether there should at all be an extension of one year in the contract of supply of diet by the appellant herein which decision should be dependant upon the factors which are otherwise necessary to be considered for granting such an extension in terms of the tender document. The decision be taken within a period of fifteen (15) days. 6 11. In case the D.D.M.C. takes a decision not to extend the contract period by one year, as is otherwise envisaged, then, the directions issued by the learned single Judge would be complied with in letter and spirit by inviting fresh tenders for allotment of the contract. However, in case the Committee comes to a conclusion that the contract period has to be extended by year, then, it shall be at liberty to order so accordingly and the judgment and order impugned dated 16.04.2025 to that extent shall stand modified. No order as to costs. one Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT,REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^To, OFFICER S Medical and Family Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. SecreK Amaravathi. Guntur District. ’ '3'®' Management Committee ( DMC), O/o. The District Collectors Office, Tirupathi, Tirupathi ^eL'rTHrsptetSDMa Government 4. One CC to Sri Pamarthi Kameswara Rao 5. One CC to Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, Advocate [OPUC] ® I^dh^Prade's^^U^T?''^"' 7. Two CD Copies Velagapudi District. Advocate [OPUC] High Court of RAM HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 I 03 MAY 2025 Current Secuon . ^ COMMON ORDER WA.Nos.546 & 562 of 2025 mi ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS