Telangana High Court
M/S Ayyappa Enterprises vs L Jhansi on 3 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1212 OF 2025
Mr. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sanjeev Reddy Gillela, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant.
Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sarasani Rahul Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
Mr. M. P. K. Aditya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4-
TVVP.
Mr. R. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health
appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 7.
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22696 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1 herein.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition was for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Additional Collector and the Chairman to award the contract to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The dispute brought by the writ petitioner to the Court relates to a Tender Notification dated 12.06.20205 issued by the concerned authorities for supply of diet to the inpatients of Area Hospital and 2 Community Health Centres situated at Bhainsa, Narsapur and Mudhole. 2
3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant (the respondent No.7 in W.P.No.22696 of 2025), learned counsel appearing for the Tendering Authority/the respondent No.7 as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
4. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent No.1 to challenge the contract awarded to the appellant/respondent No.7 for supply of diet in the aforementioned Area Hospital and 2 Community Health Centres. The ground of challenge to the award of tender was that the action of the concerned State Authority violating the terms of the Tender Notification, dated 12.06.2025. The learned Single Judge found the substance in the case made out by the writ petitioner and held inter alia and allowed the Writ Petition by directing the respondent No.5-Additional Collector and Chairman to award the contract to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner for supply of diet pursuant to the Notification, dated 12.06.2025. The relief given to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was on the ground that the Notification contained Note stating that 'the eligible local/District Mahila Samakhya shall be given preference' and that the Tender Authority should have 3 awarded the contract to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner since the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was a local Scheduled Tribe Women and had also quoted the same price i.e., Rs.72/- along with the other Tenderers.
5. The undisputed facts disclosed on behalf of the parties are as follows:
6. The Tender Notification, dated 12.06.2025 contains a Note stating that the preference will be given to the eligible local/District Mahila Samakhya. The Writ Petitioner was an individual, who claimed to be a local Scheduled Tribe Women. However, it is undisputed that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner failed to produce any Certificate confirming her eligibility under the Note in the Tender Notification, whereby preference was to be given to a local/ District Mahila Samakhya, but produced her Certificates confirming her status only at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. It is also undisputed that the writ petitioner was absent at the time of draw of lots and also it was intimated to the husband of the petitioner to attend the tender finalization process by the Convenor of the District Diet Managing Committee (DDMC), wherein he clearly stated 4 that he was unable to attend and that he would accept the decision of the DDMC. These facts have been specifically stated in the counter of the Tender Authority, which is part of the record.
7. It is also admitted that the appellant herein/respondent No.7 was awarded the Tender not through any unilateral decision or the exercise of discretionary power of the Tender Authority, but through a process of drawing of lots. The drawing of lots was undertaken since all the bidders bid for the same price i.e., Rs.72/-.
8. The above facts make it clear that there was no scope for the writ petitioner to complain of any arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of power by the Tender Authority. The very fact that the award was made pursuant to the drawing of lots would satisfy the test of transparency and bona fides on the part of the Tender Authority. Further, the grievance of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge of not being informed about the Tender finalization process also appears to be doubtful. There is no rebuttal on the part of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to the fact that the writ petitioner's husband was informed till the 5 finalization process. The Court is also informed that the recording of the writ petitioner being the current supplier of diet is also incorrect, since the appellant continues till date.
9. However, what is more relevant is that there has been no violation of the Tender Notification, including the Note therein. The Note simply states that the preference will be given to the eligible local/ District Mahila Samakhya. As stated above, the writ petitioner did not produce any Certificate to show that she is eligible under the said Note.
10. It is a well settled that a Writ Court shall not interfere with the decision of the Tender Authority unless the decision is found to be coloured by extraneous considerations. The Courts have consistently held that the Tender Authority is the best person to decide the eligible Tenderer or the person best suited for the job. In the present case, the strictures to be applied on the Writ Court would apply to the facts of the present case, since the Court has not found any arbitrary or illegal action on the part of the Tender Authority in selecting the appellant/respondent No.7.
6
11. We accordingly, find merit in the Writ Appeal. The impugned order, dated 10.10.2025 is set aside and W.A.No.1212 of 2025 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
All connected applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.
__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 03.11.2025 prat