APHC010390712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 912 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3584] Christy Friedgram Industry Private Limited ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 29th July, 2026 Present : Advocate for Appellant : Mr Avinash Desai, Senior Counsel with Mr P Badrinath Advocate for Respondents : Mr Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate General with Mr D. Yatindra Dev (Spl.GP) LISA GILL, CJ: Prayer in this writ appeal is for setting aside interlocutory order dated 24.07.2026 whereby interim relief as prayed for by appellant – writ petitioner has been declined. 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_912_2026 2. Appellant – writ petitioner filed WP.No.20009 of 2026 seeking a direction to respondents to consider the bid submitted by it pursuant to E-Procurement Notice No.WDC02-24040/01/2023-SNP and Tender ID.No.841561 dated 04.09.2025. It is submitted that petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under Companies Act, 1956 involved in business of manufacturing nutritional and supplementary kits with all necessary certificates and that petitioner has a full-fledged manufacturing unit at Tamil Nadu which is equipped with complete requisite infrastructure facilities essential for effective operation. It is submitted that petitioner earlier filed WP.No.1208 of 2026 for directing respondents to evaluate the bids strictly in accordance with required documents including copy of shelf life certificate under clause 2.2 and performance certificate as required to be issued by Head of the Department under clause 2.14.1 for technical qualification of bids and as per clause 2.2 and 2.14.1 of the tender. Said writ petition was dismissed on 13.07.2026 leading to file WA.No.871 of 2026 which is stated to be pending consideration. In the meanwhile, petitioner was disqualified vide impugned proceedings dated 18.07.2026 for being non- complaint with clause 2.8(e) of terms and conditions of tender document. Aggrieved therefrom, writ petitioner filed WP.No.20009 of 2026. 3. Learned Single Bench vide impugned order dated 24.07.2026 dismissed IA.No.2 of 2026 seeking interim relief. Operative portion of impugned order dated 24.07.2026 reads as under: 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_912_2026 “The main contentions of the petitioner is that petitioner possess manufacturing unit at State of Tamil Nadu and it exempts from submitting of any lease deed under clause 2.8(e) of the (NIT) and the petitioner further asserts that the petitioner can establish the manufacturing unit within 6 months from the date of award and the clause 2.8(e) the said clause does not specify that it should necessarily be located in the state of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, argued, disqualifying the petitioner from the technical bid amounts to arbitrary action, as observed by the Supreme Court in the Jagadish mandal case (referred supra1) the court can exercise the judicial review hence prayed to direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in financial bid. The petitioner cannot contend that when the tender condition in the NIT speaks to supply Balasanjeevani and Balamrutham, supplementary Nutrition Programme in the state of Andhra Pradesh allow a manufacturing unit based in State of Tamil Nadu would qualify him without compliance of Clauses like 2.8(e) of (NIT). And as rightly argued by the Special Government Pleader the author of the document is the best person to understand and interpret its requirements. Six bidders have participated in the bid, since the writ petitioner was disqualified in the technical bid and the other 5 bidders were qualified for the financial bid, hence it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent intended to benefit some specific private party. The petitioner was disqualified, no valid basis to allege arbitrariness. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the relief prayed by the petitioner to consider his bid is cannot be considered.” 4. Learned counsel for appellant contends that learned Single Bench has misdirected itself in not granting interim relief of opening of financial bid of petitioner. Technical bid of petitioner has been rejected on the 4 HCJ & CGR, J WA_912_2026 ground of violation of clause No.2.8(e) of tender document. As per said clause, it is provided that a bidder not having its own manufacturing unit should submit authorised lease document for ten years. Appellant, it is submitted, has a manufacturing unit located in State of Tamil Nadu; it is not condition of tender document that manufacturing unit should be in State of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, action of respondents is incorrect and rejection of writ petitioner‟s interim prayer is unjustified. It is thus prayed that impugned order dated 24.07.2026 be set aside and interim relief as sought be granted. 5. Learned Advocate General, however, points out that condition of „manufacturing facility in Andhra Pradesh‟ is a specific prescribed condition. Reference is made to list of documents comprising technical and financial bid. It is further submitted that it is specifically mentioned in clause 2.14.1(w) that list of manufacturing facilities in Andhra Pradesh should be attached with proof of valid certificate of registration. As per tender document, in case manufacturing unit is not existing in the State, bidder should submit authorised lease document for ten years and the plant can be established within a period of six months (later enhanced to eight months) after award of tender. It is contended that there is no question of considering financial bid of appellant – writ petitioner, in the given facts and circumstances. Dismissal of writ appeal is sought. 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance. 5 HCJ & CGR, J WA_912_2026 7. Clause 2.8(e) states that „Bidder not having own manufacturing unit, the bidder should submit authorized lease document for 10 years. The lease below 10 years will not be considered.‟ 8. Clause 2.14 details the documents comprising technical and financial bids. Clause 2.14.1 details the documents to be attached with technical bid. Clause (w) of 2.14.1 states that list of manufacturing facilities in Andhra Pradesh, with the proof of valid certificate of registration shall be attached. 9. We further take note of the undertaking submitted by petitioner along with its bid to the effect that it would set up manufacturing unit in State of Andhra Pradesh as per provisions of tender in clause 2.2 - eligibility and qualification requirements of bidder in 2.2.1(n),(o),(p),(q),(r) and (s) read with corrigendum dated 12.12.2025 so as to manufacture and supply of Balamrutham from the said unit. There is another declaration dated 28.12.2025 to the effect that after selection as a successful bidder and after receipt of award of contract petitioner shall set up manufacturing facilities in Andhra Pradesh as per requirement of the tender. 10. In the given factual matrix, we prima facie do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that having a manufacturing unit located in State of Andhra Pradesh is not a condition prescribed in tender documents and that manufacturing unit can be located outside the State as well. As per clause 2.8(e), it is provided that a bidder not 6 HCJ & CGR, J WA_912_2026 having its own manufacturing unit should submit an authorized lease document for ten years and any lease below ten years will not be considered. As per clause 1.1.6, bidder should have established the plant for preparation of Balamrutham (ready to eat food) within six months after award, with the period being enhanced to eight months by way of a subsequent corrigendum. 11. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, learned counsel for appellant – writ petitioner is unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or irregularity in impugned order dated 24.07.2026 which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 12. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter which is in the realm of consideration by learned Single Bench; observations as made in this order are limited for the purpose of decision thereof. No costs. Pending application(s) if any stand(s) disposed of accordingly. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No