2017 Supreme(AP) 143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
Baxalta Bioscience India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 40315 of 2016
Decided On : 13-03-2017

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 226, 14 - Tender document - clause 2(3) of Section H - Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent - Undisputed facts in the present case are as follows - Second respondent invited tenders bearing No. 2/TS MSIDC/Medicines/2016, dated for procurement of certain generic medicines from the interested parties - Tender was issued for procurement of medicines - Though the petitioner submitted its bids for three products - We are concerned with "Factor VIII." So far as Factor VIII is concerned the petitioner and the third respondent submitted their bids - Documents which are to be submitted under Part-A out of which documents at serial numbers 4 to 18 should be submitted in original by online and documents at serial numbers 19 to 27 should be self-attested copies bearing rubber stamp impression of Firm - Part-B provides for submission of original DD and all the copies of documents mentioned in serial numbers 30 to 36. The supporting documents have to be uploaded in files having size less than 1 MB. The petitioner submitted its online bid - Technical bid of the petitioner ran up to pages which was broken into files less than in size. Out of documents to be uploaded the petitioner could upload only 12 documents within the specified time - Documents as per Annexure-7 are mentioned as till page no. but uploaded documents were only till 69 pages - Firm has not submitted valid GMP Certificate Market Standing Certificate – Held, Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review - Decision made by the authority is mala-fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say - Position it cannot be held that rejection of the tender for non-compliance with tender conditions is bad - Admittedly petitioner did not upload all the documents through online and submitted the required online documents through offline after the last date for submission of bids - Court cannot express any opinion in the present case regarding the position of the petitioner had it submitted the online documents through offline before the closure of the tender - Now the law is well settled that this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority or consider the case on the grounds of equity - This Court has to examine whether the decision taken by the authority was reasonable not arbitrary and proper - It is also on record that five tenders were rejected on the selfsame ground, though not relating to the present item of contract - Court sees no ground to interfere with the decision taken by the second respondent in rejecting the bid of the petitioner - Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed - Petitions pending in this Writ Petition – Ordered Accordingly.