IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the discretion of the tender evaluation committee to consider a bidder's past conduct is valid and does not violate principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

1. Initially, W.P.No.10920 of 2023 was filed by Koduri Suresh Babu, challenging the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing diet contract vide Rc.No.375/G2/2021 dated 12.04.2023 in favour of Respondent No.5. Interim order was passed by this Court on 27.04.2023, suspending the proceedings dated 12.04.2023. Subsequently, W.A.No.488 of 2023 was filed by Mr. K. Beeran Kutty/the unsuccessful contractor in the writ petition, wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court stayed the operation of order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.04.2023 and consequential proceedings dated 02.05.2023. Thereafter, the matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P (C) Nos.11459/2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the matter, requesting the learned Single Judge of the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petition without waiting for the decision of the writ appeal on which the impugned interim order was passed. Hence, W.P.No.10920 of 2023 along with W.P.No.10901 of 2023 and W.P.No.10945 of 2023 are placed before this Court for adjudication.

2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order.

3. The petitioner is a diet contractor, engaged in supplying diet to inpatients and doctors in various Government Hospitals. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the action of the official respondents in awarding diet contract to Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.10920 of 2023 & 10906 of 2023 and Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10945 of 2023 is not in accordance with law. W.P.No.10920 of 2023 is taken as the leading case.

4. The facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the petitioner, a diet contractor, is engaged in supplying diet to Government Hospitals in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Respondent No. 3 issued a tender notice for supplying diet to inpatients and duty doctors at Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupati. Despite both the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 qualifying in the Technical Bid and quoting the same price, the contract was awarded to Respondent No. 5. The petitioner alleges that authorities violated rules, introduced a new evaluation method, disqualified the petitioner, and favored Respondent No. 5. Consequently, the petitioner challenges the official respondents' decision to award the contract to Respondent No. 5 in the present writ petitions.

5. Respondent No.5 filed detailed counter in all the writ petitions, denying material allegations, stating that the tender notification was issued on 27.03.2023 by the 3rd Respondent, outlining the process of tender document acquisition, submission, and the authority of the 3rd Respondent to accept or reject tenders. Both the 5th Respondent and the Petitioner submitted their bids in compliance with the tender conditions and notification. While the bid of another individual was rejected during the technical bid stage, both the 5th Respondent and the Petitioner qualified in the technical bid, leading to the opening of financial bids. Both parties offered a rate of Rs. 72/- per day per patient. The preference for the bid of the 5th Respondent over that of the Petitioner was based on considerations of previous conduct and antecedents. The Petitioner was alleged to have committed irregularities while serving as a diet contractor at Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad, leading to a criminal case registered against them. Furthermore, a letter dated 08.06.2021 from the concerned District Collector ordered the recovery of a substantial amount from the Petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. Given these allegations and misconduct, the Committee exercised its discretion in favor of the 5th Respondent to ensure the welfare of patients and doctors at the hospital, as well as the continuity of supplies. Additionally, the Petitioner's history of evasion of statutory payments such as GST to government departments, resulting in cancellation/suspensi