THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NOs: 981 & 982 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: 1. Both these Contempt Cases are filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 10.05.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.10920 & 10901 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Harinadh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this Hon’ble Court specifically observed that rejecting the bid of the petitioner and awarding the tender in favour of Respondent No.5 is contrary to the terms of the tender and amounts to exercising power out of the scope of terms of tender document in biased manner. He also submits that, even though this Court specifically observed that, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein are taking steps to extend the contract period contrary to the findings of this Court, which amounts to willful disobedience and in violation of the orders of this Court. Hence, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are liable for punishment under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 2 NV,J C.C.Nos.981 & 982 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the expiry of the term of Respondent No.5 and filed W.P.Nos.9191 & 9210 of 2025 to declare the action of the respondent sin issuing extension order vide Rc.No.375/G2/2025 dated 19.02.2025 in favour of Respondent No.4. On 16.04.2025, this Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned order, while directing the respondents to call for fresh tenders for supply of diet contract in respect of the subject hospitals in the writ petitions. It further specified that, till finalization of such tender process, the respondents shall permit the unofficial respondents to supply the diet to both the hospitals in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order, the unofficial respondent preferred W.A.Nos.546 & 562 of 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench allowed the writ appeals on 06.05.2025, modified the judgment and order as under: 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. 3 NV,J C.C.Nos.981 & 982 of 2025 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 one 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.” 5. On perusal of the order in writ appeal, the common order passed in writ petitions was modified under which the respondents were empowered to extend the tender period. Hence, the extension of tender cannot be found fault with and it is in terms of the modified judgment of this Court. 6. Based on the counter affidavit, learned counsel submits that, at present, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 neither called for tenders by way of fresh notifications nor issued any notice to the public for inviting bids for supply of diet contract, but only took a decision for extension of the same for one more year in pursuance of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.546 & 562 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025, therefore, if any extension of contract is necessary, it would be subject to cause of action and the same should be tested if necessary by the petitioner herein by way of appropriate proceedings. In view of the same, the extension of one more year granted in favour of the 4 NV,J C.C.Nos.981 & 982 of 2025 existing tenderers i.e. Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in W.P.Nos.9194 & 9210 of 2025 may not come in the way for deciding the present contempt cases. 7. The direction of this Court in W.P.Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 dated 10.05.2024 is clear and categorical, as extracted below: (a) The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner to participate in the ensuing contracts/tenders, on par with others, without referring the alleged antecedents and deficiencies at Niloufer Hospital, since the said proceedings were set-aside by order in W.P.No.7302 of 2021 dated 04.07.2023. (b) Rejecting the tender of the petitioner and awarding the tender in favour of Respondent No.5 is contrary to the facts on hand and amounts to exercising power out of the scope of terms of tender in biased manner. However, since Respondent Nos.5 & 6 continued more than one year and a little period is available for completion of the tender period, the Diet Contracts awarded in favour of Respondent Nos.5 & 6, but continued on the ground that supply cannot be disturbed and they may be continued as usual; 8. On perusal of the order, particularly, the direction of this Court, that if the respondents issued tender afresh inviting tender, the candidature of the petitioner should be considered, but as of now, no tender was called for by the respondents. As such, either consideration or rejection of bid of petitioner does not arise. Therefore, the respondents did not proceed in deviation to the orders of this Hon’ble Court. 5 NV,J C.C.Nos.981 & 982 of 2025 9. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, the present contempt cases are filed only to compel the respondents to grant contract in favour of the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that, the respondents neither flouted nor disobeyed the orders of this Court and since the respondents did not violate the orders passed by this Court, in the absence of any violation or disobedience on the part of the respondents, they cannot be held liable for punishable under Sections 10 & 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, therefore, the present contempt cases are liable to be closed. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, contempt cases are closed. No costs. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 13.11.2025 SP 6 NV,J C.C.Nos.981 & 982 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NOs: 981 & 982 OF 2025 Date:13.11.2025 W SP