SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1544

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
M/s S.S. Consultancy - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18854 of 2023
Decided On : 14-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A K Jayaprakash Rao
For the Respondent: GP For Medical Health FW

Tender conditions are binding and deviations lead to arbitrariness, violating fairness in the procurement process.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Tender Process - The petitioner challenged the award of an e-tender contract on grounds of arbitrariness and non-compliance with mandatory provisions. It was asserted that the 6th respondent did not meet technical qualifications as per tender conditions, particularly regarding mandatory documentation.

(B) Legal standards in tender processes dictate that deviations from stipulated conditions compromise fairness and transparency. The court emphasized the sacrosanct nature of tender conditions, ruling that the actions of the respondents amounted to arbitrariness contrary to constitutional mandates.

(C) Findings concluded that the tender contract awarded to the 6th respondent was illegal and thus set aside due to his non-compliance. Respondents are directed to reconsider bids in alignment with tender conditions. (Paras 10, 11, 12, and 13)

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioner’s claims against the tender process. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counterarguments by the respondents supporting the tender decision. (Para 3 , 4 , 6)
3. court's examination of compliance with tender conditions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. resolution of the court to allow the writ petition. (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of Respondents 3 and 4 in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 21.06.2023 and dated 21.06.2023, whereby the e-tender contract for Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services (IHFMS) at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad was awarded to the 6th respondent. Petitioner contends that such action is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the tender conditions and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . They therefore, seeks to declare the impugned proceedings as null and void and consequently, to direct Respondents 3 and 4 to consider and award tender work in their favour.

2. Petitioner states that it is an established agency engaged in the business of providing manpower, sanitation, housekeeping, and security services to various Government Departments and private institutions for more than fifteen years. The Agency has consistently maintained an unblemished record and has been recognized for its efficiency, reliability and quality of services rendered. It has successfully executed several contracts of similar nature in the past across Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, thereby acquiring considerable professional experience in hospital and institutional facility management services. It is stated, petitioner's Agency employs a substantial workforce duly registered under the applicable labour and social security enactments such as the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Employees' State Insurance Act. By reason of this extensive experience and compliance with statutory obligations, petitioner asserts that the Agency is fully qualified to participate in tenders relating to Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services (IHFMS).

2.1. It is stated, the 4th respondent, Superintendent of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, issued e-Tender Notification dated 15.06.2022 for providing IHFMS at the said hospital for a period of three years covering 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25. In compliance with the terms of the tender, petitioner duly submitted bid through the Government e-Procurement portal, uploading all mandatory documents, declarations, certificates, and supporting records, along with the requisite Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) in the prescribed manner and within the stipulated time. It is also stated, petitioner's bid was in strict conformity with the tender conditions, demonstrating their eligibility both technically and financially.

2.2. It is also stated, seven bidders participated in the said tender, namely: (1) petitioner, (2) M/s Agile Security Force Pvt. Ltd. (3) the 6th respondent, (4) M/s Sai Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (5) M/s Surya Teja Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. (6) M/s Sai Security Services, and (7) M/s Quality Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Out of these, only two bidders ie. petitioner and the 6th respondent were declared qualified for opening the financial bid. Upon verification of the documents uploaded by the 6th respondent through e-Procurement portal, petitioner discovered multiple irregularities and non-compliance with the mandatory technical conditions. According to petitioner, the 6th respondent failed to furnish crucial documents required under Section IV of the tender, therefore was not entitled to be considered at all in the technical evaluation stage.

2.3. Petitioner pointed out that under Clause 4.2.3(e) of Section IV of the tender document, every bidder was required to upload the latest Income Tax Returns along with proof of receipt and the accompanying statements of accounts, including profit and loss account and balance sheet, as evidence of financial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top