An administrative authority granted liberty by a court to either proceed with an existing tender via corrigendum or invite fresh bids may validly choose the former, provided the process is updated to reflect current timelines and is not arbitrary or illegal.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.04.2026

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to

Law Reporters/Journals

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment?

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

COMMON ORDER:

1. In W.P. No. 10023 of 2026, the petitioner, a diet service provider in Andhra Pradesh, challenges the action of the respondent authorities in proceeding to open sealed tenders pursuant to the tender notification dated 16.07.2025, issued for a two-year period. The tender process had earlier been stalled due to interim orders passed in a writ petition filed by an existing contractor, K. Suresh Babu, who sought extension of his contract beyond 01.03.2025 under Clause 11(c) of G.O.Ms. No. 325 dated 01.11.2011. During the pendency of that case, the authorities were restrained from finalizing the tender, and the existing contractor continued in diet supply. While disposing of writ petition on 18.03.2026, this Court noted that one year of the tender period had already elapsed and granted liberty to the tender authorities to either continue the existing tender process (by corrigendum) or to invite fresh tenders in accordance with law. Thereafter, by note orders dated 07.04.2026 and 10.04.2026, issued corrigendum amending the period of lease, the authorities decided to open the previously submitted tenders. The petitioner contends that proceeding with the original tender, despite the lapse of substantial time and without issuing a corrigendum or fresh notification, is illegal and arbitrary. An impleaded respondent firm, which participated in the tender and deposited EMD, supports the authorities’ action, asserting that the tendering authority has discretion to proceed with the existing process and that opening the bids is necessary to avoid delay and to safeguard public funds.

2. In W.P. No. 9175 of 2026, the petitioners, who are eligible and experienced diet contractors, challenge the very continuation of the tender process initiated on 16.07.2025. They contend that, instead of issuing a fresh tender after the expiry or substantial lapse of the tender period, the authorities have arbitrarily chosen to proceed with a time-barred process. They trace the background to an earlier contract awarded to K. Suresh Babu for the period 02.03.2023 to 01.03.2025. After expiry, he sought a one-year extension, and when the fresh tender notification dated 16.07.2025 was issued, he challenged it, resulting in interim orders dated 23.07.2025 restraining finalization of the tender. During this period, he continued as contractor, which the petitioners claim was unjustified. By the time the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 18.03.2026, a substantial portion about one year of the tender period had elapsed. Although the Court permitted the authorities to decide whether to continue or re-tender, it required such decision to be in accordance with law. The petitioners argue that continuing the old tender without re-notification is arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 325, and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14, as it excludes new participants like the petitioners herein from competing for a public contract.

3. During hearing, Sri Pilli Sundeep, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this Court, by order dated 18.03.2026 in W.P. No. 18513 of 2025, had granted specific liberty to the respondent authorities either to proceed with the existing tender by extending its validity through issuance of a corrigendum or, in the alternative, to issue a fresh