APHC010532702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27573/2025 Between: 1. SRI VENKATESHWARA ASSOCIATION, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT, KOMATINENI RAVI KUMAR HAVING OFFICE AT 2ND LINE, RAILPET, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 523001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT DIET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DDMC, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-JOINT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DIET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF GOVT GENERAL HOSPITAL GGH, ONGOLE, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM SUPERINTENDENT, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT. GENERAL HOSPITAL (GGH), ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION DME, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 ...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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents, more particularly Respondent no. 2 in issuing the Tender Notification vide Rc.no. 1142/El GGH/2020-25, dt.22.09.2025 and Tender Document dt. 23.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and to consequently to set- aside the said Tender Notification vide Rc.no.1142/El GGH/2020-25, dt. 22.09.2025 and Tender Document dt.23.09.2025 and direct the Respondents to extend the current contract of the Petitioner for a further period of one (1) year as per the terms of Contract Agreement dated 01.11.2024 IA 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings including opening, scrutiny, evaluation of bids and awarding of contracts/LOA etc., with respect to Tender Notification vide Rc.no. 1142/E1 GGH/2020-25, dt. 22.09.2025 and Tender Document dt. 23.09.2025 IA NO: 2 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 direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dt. 23.09.2025 and extend the period of contract of the Petitioner for further period of one (1) year Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27573/2025 The Court made the following Order: Heard Ms. Abhigna Mandava, learned counsel representing Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health FW for the respondents. 2. Challenging the action of the respondents issuing the tender notification, dated 23.09.2025, the instant writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as the Diet Contractor for supply of diet to the inpatients and duty doctors of the respondent No.4 Hospital. It is contended that the respondent No.4 vide proceedings, dated 24.06.2023 awarded contract in favour of M/s Koduri Suresh Babu, Guntur (with effect from 01.07.2023 to 29.02.2024), M/s Anu Mess and Bakery, Tenali (from 01.03.2024 to 31.10.2024 and in favour of the petitioner with effect from 01.11.2024 to 30.06.2025 respectively, for a periods between 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2025 dividing the same between the petitioner and two others, viz., M/s Koduri Suresh Babu, Guntur (from 01.07.2023 to 29.02.2024), M/s Anu Mess and Bakery, Tenali (from 01.03.2024 to 31.10.2024 and the petitioner with effect from 01.11.2024 to 30.06.2025 respectively. However subsequently, M/s Anu Mess and Bakery failed to supply the diet as per the contract, thus the same was awarded in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 30.05.2024 and the same was continued till the completion of the original awarded period i.e., 01.11.2024 to 30.06.2025. Thereafter, the respondent 4 No.2 vide proceedings, dated 01.07.2025 allowed the petitioner to supply diet to the patients and to the Doctors till such time, the respondent No.4 Hospital finalizes the fresh tenders. It is contended that vide the impugned proceedings tenders have been called for. The petitioner sought for extension of lease deed, vide representation dated 23.09.2025, by one more year as per the tender conditions. However, the same was not considered, hence the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that as per the original tender notification, the contract was for a period of two (02) years, and the same was also extendable for another period of one year however, the respondents in disregard to the same, are proposing to call for fresh tenders. Thus the learned counsel argues that the same is in violation of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.325, dated 01.11.2011, specifically clause 11(c) of the G.O. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further in support of her contentions relies on the judgements of the Apex Court in Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel V. Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Limited 1, Padia Timber Company Private Limited V. Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port2, Monarch Infrastructure (P) Limited V. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation 3, United India Insurance Company Limited V. Orient Treasures (P) Limited4, and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Sri Madhav Brahm baba Enterprise V. State of 1 1958 SCC Online SC 145: 1959 SCR 213 : AIR 1958 SC 512 2 (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 24 3 (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 287 4 (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 49 5 UP and 4 others5, and the judgments of Telangana High Court in Martha Laxmi V. Singareni Colleries Company Limited6, G. Jaipal Reddy V. State of Telangana and others7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.09.2025. Learned counsel further argues that without issuing any proceedings terminating the contract executed in favour of the petitioner, the respondents cannot issue the impugned tender notice. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the instant writ petition has been filed after issuance of the tender notification and the date fixed for closure of the Bids. Thus argues that the writ petition at this stage is not maintainable having regard to the fact that the tenders have already been opened and the petitioner is also one of the participants in the tender process. 8. Having regard to the submissions made, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 23-09.2025, in view of the fact that the tender process has already been commenced and the Bids have already been opened. The prayer of the petitioner for extension of the lease for one more year would not merit consideration at the present situation, in view of the fact that the respondent No.2 vide proceedings, dated 01.07.2025 has taken a 5 Order in WRIT – C No.873 of 2024, (DB), Allahabad High Court, dated 07.02.2024. 6 Order in W.P.No.15683 of 2021, Telangana High Court, dated 12.07.2021. 7 Order in W.P.No.24829 of 2024, Telangana High Court, dated 09.09.2024. 6 decision to continue the petitioner till such time the tender process is initiated and Bids are finalized, the petitioner did not challenge the said proceedings at any point of time. The instant writ petition is filed, at the midst of the tender process, after participating in the tender process, alleging violation of the provisions of the G.O. 9. Thus since the tender process has already been initiated and the petitioner has also participated in the said tender, this Court deems that prayer of the petitioner does not merit consideration. With regard to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that without termination of the contract the respondents cannot issue the tender notice is misconceived since the period of contract in favour of the petitioner has already lapsed. In my considered view, the said contention does not merit consideration, since the question of termination of the agreement does not arise in the present facts and circumstances, particularly when the contractual period in favour of the petitioner has already lapsed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 14.10.2025 MSI 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27573/2025 Date: 14.10.2025 MSI