IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that contractual provisions regarding extension and payment must be honored when satisfactory performance is demonstrated.

ORDER :

1. Heard the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. A.Venkatesh, representing the learned counsel on record Mr. R.Anurag appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and heard the Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel Smt.Vedula Chitralekha on behalf of Respondent Nos.6 and 7.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking prayer under a, b, c and d but the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the prayers in so far as a, b, c are concerned are infructuous and the prayer at clause ‘d’ alone subsists and the same is extracted hereunder:

“(d) declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the arrears of payment for the services rendered, around Rs.5.5 Crores up to 18/11/2021 and for the services provided from 18/11/2021 as per Clause No. 2.17 of the Agreement No. 135/QA/NHM/P5/2018-19 dated 19/02/2018 issued by the 1st respondent, as equally arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions, restraining the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of the Notification No. GEM/2021/B/1519384, 15191251, 1519335, 1519115, 1518637 dated 14/09/2021 and Notification No. GEM/2021/B/1753650, 1753731 dated 10/12/2021, more particularly in respect of the hospitals which were allotted to the petitioner in pursuance of the Notification Ref.135/QA/NHM/P5/2018-19 dated 18/11/2017 issued by the 1st respondent and further direct the respondents to forthwith extend the tenure of the petitioner’s contract beyond the period of 3 years for a further period of 2 years in terms of Clause 1.1.8 and 2.16 of the Agreement No. Notification Ref. 135/QA/NHM/P5/2018-19 dated 19/02/2018 and also further direct the respondents to forthwith pay the arrears of service charges due to the petitioner as per Clause No. 2.37 of Agreement No. 135/QA/NHM/P5/2018-19 dated 19/02/2018 up to 18/11/2021 i.e., around Rs.5.5 Crores as well as charges for the services rendered by the petitioner from 18/11/2018 and also direct the State to conduct an independent enquiry with regard to irregularity and illegality committed in the Notification No. GEM/2021/B/1519384, 15191251, 1519335, 1519115, 1518637 dated 14/09/2021 and Notification No. GEM/2021/B/1753650, 1753731 dated 10/12/2021 and take appropriate action against the officers who are responsible and who committed irregularities.”

2. PERUSED THE RECORD:

(i) The interim orders of this Court dated 30.12.2021 passed in W.P. No. 36111 of 2021 reads as under:

“W.P. No. 36111 of 2021

Learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 4. Sri Kishore Rao, learned, Standing Counsel takes notice for respondent No. 2. Ms. Rachana Waddepalli, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondent No. 3. Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General takes notice for 5th respondent. All the counsel seeks time to the counter in the List on 10-02-2022.

I.A. No. 5 of 2021

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner seeks time to Me counter.

List on 10-02-2022.

I.A. No. 1 of 2021

Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

Petitioner contends that the condition No. 5.5 of the tender conditions imposing restriction on participation by the intending bidders beyond one zone at the bid stage itself is violative of fundamental right to carry on business, Sri V.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for implead respondents and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the caveator would submit that petitioner has filed this Writ Petition by suppressing the fact of he having taken part in the tender process and therefore he is not entitled for grant of any relief having been unsuccessful therein.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for implead respondents submits that his client has been declared as L1 in respect of Zone II and IV, while Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for caveator submits that his client