Tender conditions must ensure fairness and quality in public procurement, and courts should exercise restraint in reviewing administrative decisions unless clear arbitrariness is shown.

ORDER : 

(PULLA KARTHIK, J.)

Since the lis in these writ petitions is similar in nature, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.1. W.P.No.11071 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of “Writ of Mandamus” declaring the action of the 2^nd Respondent in issuing Tender No.585922 dated 30.03.2025, more particularly eligibility condition No.2.2 and 2.12, for supply of Eggs (hen) and the consequential Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, changing the tender qualifying conditions just before few days of last date for submission of Tender, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass…”

2.2. W.P.No.11399 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring Tender Reference No.1074/WDCW/ AL&SNP/EGGS/I/2025 dated 30.03.2025 and subsequent Clause 2.12 of the Corrigendum dated 08.04.2025, issued Respondent No. 2, as arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950, whereby insofar as it mandates submission of a certificate of grading issued prior to the date of publication of the tender, and consequently quash the said Tender Reference No. 1074/WDCW/AL&SNP/EGGS/I2025 dated 30.03.2025 and subsequent clause 2.12 of corrigendum dated 08.04.2025 in its entirety and further direct the Respondents to suitably modify the Tender conditions to enable fair and equal participation and pass…”

3. Heard Sri E. Madan Moahn Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11071 of 2025.

Sri V.R. Avula, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11399 of 2025.

Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, representing learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions.

4. Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11071 of 2025, submitted that the petitioners are farmers and they are in the business of poultry farm, including the activity of procurement of Eggs. While so, respondent No.2 floated a State-level Zonal Tender, vide Tender No.585922 dated 30.03.2025, for procurement and supply of Eggs (Hen) as per the AGMARK certification and other specifications mentioned therein, for a period of one year (April 2025 to March 2026), for supply to the beneficiaries under the Arogya Lakshmi Program and Supplementary Nutrition Program for Zones-I to VII (except Hyderabad District), and the delivery of Eggs was to all the Anganwadi Centres under the Department of Women Development and Child Welfare in the State of Telangana. It was further submitted that the last date for submission of the bid was 10.04.2025. While the things thus, respondent No.2 issued a Corrigendum on 08.04.2025, duly extending the last date for submission of online bids until 15.04.2025, and the eligibility/tender qualifying conditions have been substantially changed just before the last date of submission of tenders.

5. It was further submitted that as per the qualifying condition number 2.2 of the tender dated 30.03.2025, the tenderer should supply the Eggs (Hen) as per the AGMARK certificate of authorization for Eggs (Hen) valid for at least two years prior to the bid submission date, which was done only to favour some of the tenderers. Further, as per clause 2.12 of Corrigendum, AGMARK certificate should have been issued prior to the date of issuance of the tender and the said Corrigendum has been issued only to eliminate many participants like the petitioners, with a view to favour those who have obtained the said certificate prior to the issuance of t