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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 64335

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
M/s S.S. Consultancy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 18854 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avinash Desai, A.K. Jayaprakash Rao
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government Pleader for Agriculture, S.V. Ramana

Tender conditions regarding mandatory technical documentation are sacrosanct; failure by a bidder to possess a required statutory licence for specialized operations (e.g., Pest Control Applicator Licence under Rule 10(3A)) renders their bid non-compliant, and discretion cannot be exercised by authorities to waive such mandatory requirements.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Tender Conditions - Statutory Licence - Requirement of licence under Rule 10(3A) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 for pest control and fumigation - Award of contract to a bidder holding licence under Rule 10(4) (sale/distribution only) is violative of tender condition and arbitrary. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

(B) Tender Process - Compliance - Mandatory conditions - Compliance with all prerequisites is essential; tender inviting authority has no discretion to overlook non-compliance with technical requirements. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the award of an Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services (IHFMS) contract to the 6th respondent, arguing that the 6th respondent lacked the mandatory pest control licence under Rule 10(3A) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971. The 6th respondent only held a licence under Rule 10(4), which is limited to the sale and distribution of insecticides. The petitioner contended that this deficiency rendered the 6th respondent ineligible, a fact they claimed was ignored by the authorities.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the pest control licence was a mandatory technical qualification. The submission of an incorrect class of licence meant the bidder did not comply with the tender requirements. Consequently, the acceptance of the 6th respondent's bid was illegal and arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the 6th respondent was technically qualified despite holding a licence under Rule 10(4) instead of the mandatory Rule 10(3A) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971.

Ratio Decidendi: Tender conditions are sacrosanct and must be applied uniformly. Failure to meet a mandatory technical condition at the bid stage cannot be condoned, as allowing non-compliant bids compromises the integrity and impartiality of public procurement.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned proceedings set aside.

Table of Content
1. allegations of procedural violations and non-compliance with tender requirements. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents' counter-arguments regarding process validity and bidder eligibility. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. technical non-compliance renders a bid ineligible for evaluation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. setting aside awarding of tender due to arbitrary non-compliance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

O R D E R:

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

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