The court affirmed that adherence to tender conditions is mandatory, and disqualification for non-compliance does not violate principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit is that he participated in the e-procurement Tender Notification dated 25.05.2022. After submitting its bid and receiving no communication, the petitioner discovered on the e-procurement portal on 20.06.2022 that it had been disqualified for being a "Block listed agency" citing a Government Memo from the Superintendent of MGM Hospital, Warangal, dated 02.04.2022. The petitioner had already submitted a letter to Respondent No. 1 on 21.06.2022, clarifying that the blacklisting direction had been suspended by this Court vide Order dated 08.04.2022 initially and later set aside entirely on 11.04.2023. Challenging this disqualification, the petitioner filed WP No. 35487 of 2022. During these proceedings, it was orally confirmed by the government's counsel that no Letter of Award had been issued to any bidder, despite Respondent No. 4 having filed its own writ petition, WP No. 38219 of 2022, claiming it had been awarded the contract on 08.09.2022 and 12.09.2022.

1.1 The petitioner’s writ petition, W.P.No.35487 of 2022 was dismissed on 28.02.2023, and the W.P.No.38219 of 2022 filed by respondent No.4 was allowed. The petitioner filed an appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide Order dated 23.03.2023 in WA Nos. 313 and 361 of 2023, set aside the petitioner's disqualification and remanded the matter back to the tender evaluation committee, by directing the committee to open and consider the petitioner's price bid against that of Respondent No. 4 and make a fresh decision within 30 days. In compliance, the petitioner submitted a letter to Respondent No. 1 on 19.04.2023. Respondent No. 1, in its letter dated 17.05.2023, replied that it would only act upon receipt of the original signed copy of the order. The petitioner provided the certified copy through another letter dated 09.06.2023, to which Respondent No. 1 responded on 16.06.2023, acknowledging receipt on 12.06.2023 and committing to act within 30 days from that later date.

1.2 The petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 1 issued a final "speaking order" on 10.07.2023 disqualifying him on entirely new technical grounds that were not raised during the initial evaluation. It is contended that the impugned Speaking Order alleged that the bid, submitted in the name of "M/s Agile Security Force Pvt Ltd," contained documents from three different firm names, including "M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited" and "M/s. Agile Security Force," and cited issues with the Earnest Money Deposit, registration, PAN card, income tax returns, annual turnover, and a solvency certificate not in Indian rupees. It also claimed a pest control license lacked an issue date and validity period; and these discrepancies demonstrated a failure to meet the tender's document requirements under Section IV, 4.2.3 (a) to (n). 1.3The petitioner contends that "M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited" and "M/s. Agile Security Force Pvt Ltd" are minor stylistic variations referring to the same single legal entity, a company originally established as a proprietorship in 1994 and incorporated in 1995. It contends the solvency certificate was, in fact, in Indian rupees and that the pest control license, renewed in 2019, is valid for five years until 2024 as per the Insecticides Rules, 1971. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 4 is itself technically non-compliant, failing to satisfy turnover criteria and having inconsistent experience documents, yet these lapses were ignored by the Respondent No. 1. It is contended that this entire sequence, from the initial blacklis