Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 27982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Lisa Gill, CJ, Challa Gunaranjan, J
CHRISTY FRIEDGRAM INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO: 912 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avinash Desai, P Badrinath
For the Respondents: Dammalapati Srinivas, D. Yatindra Dev
A bidder must strictly adhere to tender conditions regarding the location of manufacturing facilities; possessing a unit in another state does not override specific requirements to have or establish a unit within the contracting state.
Headnote:(A) Tender Conditions - Manufacturing Facility - Requirement of local presence - Where the tender specifically requires a manufacturing unit within a particular state or a valid lease deed for the same, the possession of a manufacturing unit in another state does not exempt the bidder from compliance with these specific technical requirements. (Para 10)
(B) Judicial Review - Technical Disqualification - Scope of interference - In the absence of manifest illegality or arbitrariness, and where the bidder has previously submitted undertakings to comply with state-specific facility requirements, the court will not interfere with the disqualification of a bidder during the technical evaluation process. (Para 9, 11)
Issues: Whether the disqualification of the appellant for non-compliance with the requirement of having a manufacturing unit in Andhra Pradesh was arbitrary given that the appellant possessed a unit in Tamil Nadu.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the writ appeal and the lower court's refusal to grant interim relief based on tender non-compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding whether a manufacturing unit outside the state satisfies local tender requirements. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. analysis of specific tender clauses and the bidder's own undertakings to establish a local facility. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. conclusion that strict compliance with local manufacturing requirements is mandatory and the appeal is dismissed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
LISA GILL, CJ:
Prayer in this writ appeal is for setting aside interlocutory order dated 24.07.2026 whereby interim relief as prayed for by appellant – writ petitioner has been declined.
2. Appellant – writ petitioner filed WP.No.20009 of 2026 seeking a direction to respondents to consider the bid submitted by it pursuant to E-Procurement Notice No.WDC02-24040/01/2023-SNP and Tender ID.No.841561 dated 04.09.2025. It is submitted that petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under Companies Act, 1956 involved in business of manufacturing nutritional and supplementary kits with all necessary certificates and that petitioner has a full-fledged manufacturing unit at Tamil Nadu which is equipped with complete requisite infrastructure facilities essential for effective operation. It is submitted that petitioner earlier filed WP.No.1208 of 2026 for directing respondents to evaluate the bids strictly in accordance with required documents including copy of shelf life certificate under clause 2.2 and performance certificate as required to be issued by Head of the Department under clause 2.14.1 for technical qualification of bids and as per clause 2.2 and 2.14.1 of the tender. Said writ petition was dismissed on 13.07.2026 leading to file WA.No.871 of 2026 which is stated to be pending consideration. In the meanwhile, petitioner was disqualified vide impugned proceedings dated 18.07.2026 for being non- complaint with clause 2.8(e) of terms and conditions of tender document.
Aggrieved therefrom, writ petitioner filed WP.No.20009 of 2026.
3. Learned Single Bench vide impugned order dated 24.07.2026 dismissed IA.No.2 of 2026 seeking interim relief. Operative portion of impugned order dated 24.07.2026 reads as under:
“The main contentions of the petitioner is that petitioner possess manufacturing unit at State of Tamil Nadu and it exempts from submitting of any lease deed under clause 2.8(e) of the (NIT) and the petitioner further asserts that the petitioner can establish the manufacturing unit within 6 months from the date of award and the clause 2.8(e) the said clause does not specify that it should necessarily be located in the state of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, argued, disqualifying the petitioner from the technical bid amounts to arbitrary action, as observed by the Supreme Court in the Jagadish mandal case (referred supra1) the court can exercise the judicial review hence prayed to direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in financial bid.
The petitioner cannot contend that when the tender condition in the NIT speaks to supply Balasanjeevani and Balamrutham, supplementary Nutrition Programme in the state of Andhra Pradesh allow a manufacturing unit based in State of Tamil Nadu would qualify him without compliance of Clauses like 2.8(e) of (NIT). And as rightly argued by the Special Government Pleader the author of the document is the best person to understand and interpret its requirements. Six bidders have participated in the bid, since the writ petitioner was disqualified in the technical bid and the other 5 bidders were qualified for the financial bid, hence it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent intended to benefit some specific private party. The petitioner was disqualified, no valid basis to allege arbitrariness. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the relief prayed by the petitioner to consider his bid is cannot be considered.”
4. Learned counsel for ap
