IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Nomula Poultry Farm rep. by its Proprietor Nomula Ashok, and 7 others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary Women Development & Child Welfare Department & another – Respondent
Writ Petition No.43886 of 2022 And WP.No.46306 of 2022 & WP.No.236 of 2023
Decided on : 31-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 14, 19, 21 - Tender - Technical bid - Petitioners challenging impugned Tender issued by respondent No.2, which is against interest of small poultry farmers and floating present tender by implementing zonal system in place of existing I.C.D.S. projects for procurement of eggs - Held, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents rightly submitted that petitioners submitted their tenders pursuant to tender reference but they are not qualified in a technical bid and they are not entitled to claim any relief - Petitioners have participated in the tender process pursuant to the tender reference wherein they were declared not qualified technically they cannot turn around or question tender conditions or seek any other relief much less consideration of e-mail representations - Writ petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard Sri R.N. Hemendernath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.43886 of 2022, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Sri Addesh Varma learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.46306 of 2022, Sri M. Nagaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.236 of 2022 and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
2. In WP.No.43886/2022 and W.P.No.46306/2022 the petitioners have challenged the Tender Reference No.3347/SNP/2022, dated 21.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Women Development and Child Welfare Department (WD & CW) Department, Hyderabad.
3. In W.P.No.236/2023, the petitioner questioned the action of the respondents in not examining and not considering the e-mail representations dated 29.12.2022 and 31.12.2022 as illegal.
4. As a common question of fact and law are involved in all three writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of common order with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.
5. The petitioners in WP.No.43886 of 2022 and WP.No.46306 of 2022 are challenging the impugned Tender Reference No.3347/SNP/2022 dated 21.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.2, which is against the interest of small poultry farmers and floating the present tender by implementing the zonal system in place of existing I.C.D.S. projects for procurement of eggs and consequently to direct the respondents to float back to I.C.D.S. project-wise tender for procurement of eggs by revising the terms and conditions in the interests of poultry farmers, and to pass such other suitable order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
6. The petitioner in WP.No.236 of 2023 is challenging the impugned action of the respondents in not considering the e-mail representations, dated 29.12.2022 and 31.12.2022 respectively as illegal and sought consequential direction to declare the petitioner's firm, as a qualified participant in a technical bid along with others in respect of Zonal-IV and V, pending disposal of the writ petition.
7. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petitions emerge from the writ affidavits are as follows:
Respondent No.2 issued Tender Reference dated 21.11.2022 calling tenders at State Level Zonal Tender for the procurement and supply of Eggs (Hen) as per "Agmark" specifications and other processing/grading conditions mentioned in the tender for a period of two years i.e., January 2023- December 2024 to the beneficiaries under the flagship Arogyalaxmi and supplementary nutrition programme. In the said tender reference, respondent No.2 stated the procurement of eggs by floating state-level zonal tender for seven zones as per the zonal system of the Government of Telangana and further mentioned that the tenderer can bid for a maximum of two zones. The qualifying condition prescribed for the tender document should be fulfilled by the tenderer separately. The successful tenderer after agreeing with the Department of Women Development & Child Welfare has to supply eggs (Hen) as per "Agmark" specification (Medium Agmark quality eggs each weighing 45 to 52 grams) and other specifications mentioned in the tender document for two years as per the monthly indent given by the Department of Women Development & Child Welfare. The supply should be done to Anganwadi Centres (AWCs) as per the schedule specified by the Department of Women Development & Child Welfare. The downloading bid document starts from 22.11.2022 at 11:00 a.m; pre-bid meeting was scheduled in the Chamber of the Commissioner, WD&CW Department on 24.11.2022; closing date for downloading bid document and also the last date for
AIR INDIA LTD. Vs. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. & OTHERS
Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass
Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India
Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar
Dimapati Sadasiva Reddi, Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University v. Chancellor
Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd.
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B.
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India 1981 (1) SCC 568)
G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service
JESPARI. SLONG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Assn. v. State of T.N.
Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala
Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar
Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India
MICHIGAN RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
N.G. PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND ORS.
NATIONAL HIGH SPEED RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa
Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra 1997 (1) SCC 134 = 1996 (8) SCALE 417)
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Hs. Society
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar
Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. 1999 (1) SCC 492 = 1999 (1) Arb. LR 431 (SC)
R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority 1979 (3) SCC 488)
State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn.
Sterling Computers Ltd v. M & N Publications Ltd
Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
The State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan
Tata Cellular v. Union of India 1994 (6) SCC 651 = 1995 (1) Arb. LR 193)
Tender conditions must ensure fairness and quality in public procurement, and courts should exercise restraint in reviewing administrative decisions unless clear arbitrariness is shown.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
The public interest in a time-bound nutrition program may outweigh the private commercial interest of a petitioner benefiting from the relaxation of tender conditions.
The court upheld the validity of the tendering authority's criteria, emphasizing that terms are not subject to judicial review unless proven arbitrary or unreasonable.
Eligibility criteria in tenders must be reasonable and serve public interest, and courts will not interfere unless proven arbitrary or malicious.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of judicial review in tender matters, the need for commercial prudence in evaluating tenders, and the importance of fairness and non....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.