The court held that the tender committee's decision to consider satisfactory conduct as a criterion for finalizing the tender was not arbitrary and unreasonable.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner submits that he is a diet contractor and has been supplied diet to inpatients and doctors at various hospitals in Tirupati, including the 3rd respondent hospital for the past 34 years. The petitioner is also a diet contractor for the 4th respondent hospital.

2. Respondents 2 and 4 issued tender notification in Sl.No.222/DIET/2021, dated 12.04.2021 for supplying diet for inpatients and duty doctors for a period of two years in sealed tenders. All bids, in pursuance of the said tender, were to be considered in two stages, technical bid and financial bid. The tender document also stipulated that the conditions set out in G.O.Ms.No.325 HMFW (M1) Department, dated 01.11.2011 would apply to the tender.

3. The technical bid of the tender was duly opened on 05.05.2021 and three of the tenderers, viz., the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao and the 5th respondent were declared as qualified for participating in the financial bid. All the three tenderers quoted the minimum rate prescribed by the Government i.e., Rs.36/- for patient per day (for patient and attendant of the Tribal Patient). As all the three tenderers had quoted the lowest rates in the financial bid, the 3rd respondent committee was given the task of evaluating the three tenderers. After such evaluation, the 3rd respondent selected the 5th respondent as the successful tenderer and informed to the 2nd respondent and 4th respondent. Both the respondents 2 and 4 accepted the recommendation of the 3rd respondent and awarding the tender to the 5th respondent.

4. The petitioner aggrieved by the award of tender in favour of the 5th respondent and aggrieved by the rejection of the tender of the petitioner, has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

5. Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not give experience certificate for the past three years and all his experience certificates were for the periods prior to 2017. He submits that the bid of the petitioner could not have been rejected on that ground. He submits that the requirement of furnishing of experience certificate was set out in G.O.Ms.No.325 in clause 12 of the said G.O which stipulated that “good conduct certificate from the hospital authority competent” had been furnished. It is the contention of Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that only requirement was furnishing a good conduct certificate and in the absence of any stipulation for the period for which good conduct is required, the 3rd respondent committee could not have discriminated against the petitioner on the ground that the 5th respondent furnished experience certificate up to 2020. He submits that in the absence of any stipulation relating to the period, for which such certificate should be submitted, the 3rd respondent committee could not have brought in a condition that the certificate require to be for immediate past experience. He submits that in any event, he was the contractor for supply of diet for the 3rd respondent up to 2020, and had, in fact, made an application to the 3rd respondent for issuance of such certificate. However, the said certificate was not issued by the 3rd respondent due to which, the said certificate could not be given.

5A. Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and another, (2020) 16 SCC 489. Municipal Council, Neemuch vs. Mahadeo Real Estate and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 738. Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 216. ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 553.

6. The official respondents have filed a counter affidavit setting out their case. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated