The court affirmed that executive decisions in tendering must be devoid of arbitrariness, while confirming that non-compliance with technical criteria justifies rejection of a bid.

ORDER :

T.MADHAVI DEVI, J.

1. The W.P.No.9197 of 2025 was filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the Clause/Section of Page 8: B1 Pre- Qualification Criteria mandating the bidder to have a registered office in Telangana to participate in the tender bearing No. CCS Ref.No.IT-2/910/2025, dated 10.03.2025 for ‘Procurement of Personalized PVC QR Code Smart Ration Cards for Food and Civil Supplies Department, Telangana’ bid as highhanded, illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to suspend the same and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. When matter was taken up for admission, this Court, after hearing both the parties, vide orders dated 25.03.2025 had directed the respondents to open all the tenders including that of the petitioner company and further directed that if it is found that the petitioner company is the lowest bidder, then the tenders may not be finalized and the matter will be decided on merits, but if the petitioner company is not the lowest bidder, then the respondents are free to finalize the tenders. Subsequently, the respondents have opened the technical bids and found that the petitioner has not qualified in the technical bid and therefore, its financial bid was not opened. Challenging the same, the W.P.No.12229 of 2025 has been filed. Therefore, these two writ petitions are filed by the same party and since the issues are interconnected and they were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the respondents have issued a Tender Notification No. CCS Ref.No.IT-2/910/2025, dated 10.03.2025, for procurement of Personalized PVC QR Code Smart Ration Cards and one the Pre-Qualification Criteria required the bidders to be Smart Cards manufacturers with a registered office in Telangana. This condition was challenged in W.P.No.9197 of 2025 and thereafter, the respondents have issued a Corrigendum on 21.03.2025 modifying the Clause of the tender stating further that the bidder should preferably have the manufacturing unit in Telangana State for quality control and that the registered office anywhere in the State is also acceptable. Consequent to the interim order of this Court dated 25.03.2025, the petitioner’s bid was accepted for scrutiny along with bidders from other States as well. Subsequent to the interim order dated 25.03.2025, on 15.04.2025 the respondents have informed this Court that the petitioner company has not qualified in the technical bid as it has not satisfied two conditions i.e., 1(1), 2(b) of Section-D of the tender conditions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted before this Court that the said information has not been furnished to the petitioner and the reasons have not been communicated. In view thereof, vide orders dated 17.04.2025, this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to communicate the reasons for disqualifying the petitioner company in the technical bid and it was further observed that if the respondents have already not entered into any agreement with the successful bidder in the forenoon of that date, then the respondents were directed not to enter into any agreement with the successful bidder. This interim order has been extended from time to time.

5. In the meantime, on the communication of the reasons for holding petitioner as technically not qualified, challenging the same, the W.P.No.12229 of 2025 has been filed.

6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit along with stay vacate petition and submitt