Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Koduri Suresh Babu vs The State Of Ap on 10 May, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 10901, 10920 & 10945 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:-
1. Initially, W.P.No.10920 of 2023 was filed by Koduri Suresh Babu, challenging the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing diet contract vide Rc.No.375/G2/2021 dated 12.04.2023 in favour of Respondent No.5. Interim order was passed by this Court on 27.04.2023, suspending the proceedings dated 12.04.2023. Subsequently, W.A.No.488 of 2023 was filed by Mr. K. Beeran Kutty/the unsuccessful contractor in the writ petition, wherein, the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court stayed the operation of order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.04.2023 and consequential proceedings dated 02.05.2023. Thereafter, the matter was carried to Hon‟ble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P (C) Nos.11459/2023. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court disposed of the matter, requesting the learned Single Judge of the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petition without waiting for the decision of the writ appeal on which the impugned interim order was passed. Hence, W.P.No.10920 of 2023 along with W.P.No.10901 of 2023 and W.P.No.10945 of 2023 are placed before this Court for adjudication.
2
NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023
2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order.
3. The petitioner is a diet contractor, engaged in supplying diet to inpatients and doctors in various Government Hospitals. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the action of the official respondents in awarding diet contract to Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.10920 of 2023 & 10906 of 2023 and Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10945 of 2023 is not in accordance with law. W.P.No.10920 of 2023 is taken as the leading case.
4. The facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the petitioner, a diet contractor, is engaged in supplying diet to Government Hospitals in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Respondent No. 3 issued a tender notice for supplying diet to inpatients and duty doctors at Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupati. Despite both the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 qualifying in the Technical Bid and quoting the same price, the contract was awarded to Respondent No. 5. The petitioner alleges that authorities violated rules, introduced a new evaluation method, disqualified the petitioner, and favored Respondent No. 5. Consequently, the petitioner challenges the official respondents' decision to award the contract to Respondent No. 5 in the present writ petitions.
3
NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023
5. Respondent No.5 filed detailed counter in all the writ petitions, denying material allegations, stating that the tender notification was issued on 27.03.2023 by the 3rd Respondent, outlining the process of tender document acquisition, submission, and the authority of the 3rd Respondent to accept or reject tenders. Both the 5th Respondent and the Petitioner submitted their bids in compliance with the tender conditions and notification. While the bid of another individual was rejected during the technical bid stage, both the 5th Respondent and the Petitioner qualified in the technical bid, leading to the opening of financial bids. Both parties offered a rate of Rs. 72/- per day per patient. The preference for the bid of the 5th Respondent over that of the Petitioner was based on considerations of previous conduct and antecedents. The Petitioner was alleged to have committed irregularities while serving as a diet contractor at Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad, leading to a criminal case registered against them. Furthermore, a letter dated 08.06.2021 from the concerned District Collector ordered the recovery of a substantial amount from the Petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. Given these allegations and misconduct, the Committee exercised its discretion in favor of the 5th Respondent to ensure the welfare of patients and doctors at the hospital, as well as the continuity of supplies. Additionally, the Petitioner's history of evasion of statutory payments such as GST to government departments, resulting in cancellation/suspension of GST registrations and imposition of 4 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 penalties by authorities, further weighed in favor of selecting the bid of the 5th Respondent. The decision to accept the bid of the 5th Respondent was in accordance with tender conditions and guidelines outlined in G.O.Ms No. 325 HM & FW (M1) Department dated 01.11.2011 and circulars issued by the Director of Medical Education. The criteria for technical bid evaluation, which included experience, Income Tax and GST returns, and annual turnover, were fully satisfied by the 5th Respondent. It is further argued that the judgment in W.P. No. 15054/2020, which favored the Petitioner, was based on different circumstances and cannot be applied to the present case. The points raised in the Writ Petition are deemed untenable and unsustainable. The contract was awarded to the 5th Respondent on 13.04.2023, and since then, uninterrupted diet supply has been provided to patients and duty doctors, except for a brief period. The balance of convenience favors the continuation of the 5th Respondent as the diet contractor for the remaining contract period. Any interim orders granted in favor of the Petitioner were subsequently set aside by higher courts, affirming the decision to award the contract to the 5th Respondent.
6. Respondent No.3- Government Maternity Hospital Tirupati, filed counter affidavit stating that, in response to the tender notification, three firms submitted tenders, out of which two were disqualified during the technical bid evaluation. Both the petitioner and the 5th Respondent qualified in the technical bid by securing 100/100 marks, leading to the 5 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 opening of their financial bids. Upon evaluation, both parties quoted Rs. 72/- for the supply of diet to inpatients and attendants of tribal patients. According to Paragraph 13 (Financial Bid) of G.O. Ms. No. 325, 1IM&FW Dept, dated 01-11-2011, the contractor quoting the lowest rates in the financial bid is qualified, and in case of any discrepancies, the Chairman of the DDMC will make an appropriate decision. Utilizing the power under this paragraph, the DDMC selected the best contractor among equals, considering the previous track records of both parties. It was observed that there were allegations against the petitioner regarding the supply of diet at Niloufar Hospital, Hyderabad, where the petitioner allegedly did not fulfill the diet contract to the satisfaction of the hospital administration, resulting in financial losses to the government. After careful evaluation of the bids, the District Diet Management Committee (DDMC) awarded the contract to the 5th Respondent for the supply of diet to inpatients, attendants of tribal patients, and general duty doctors of Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupati, strictly adhering to relevant G.O.'s and tender notification conditions. The respondent contends that there was no illegality, colorable exercise of power, or violation of principles of natural justice in the selection process. The evaluation of tenders was conducted as per existing rules, and the DDMC did not act arbitrarily. The entire process was videographed, and the DDMC has absolute power to select the best among equals. The DDMC, constituted in every district for the management and 6 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 monitoring of diet supply, is responsible for calling tenders, selecting competent diet contractors, and monitoring food quality. Considering the allegations against the petitioner, the committee decided that the petitioner may not supply diet to poor patients properly and as per the diet menu, hence opting to award the contract to the 5th Respondent for proper diet supply. The DDMC followed the tender conditions stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 325 HM & FW (H2) dept, dated 01-11-2021, without altering or violating any conditions to favor the 5th Respondent as alleged by the petitioner.
7. G. Jayapal Reddy - Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10945 of 2023 filed counter affidavit highlighting the petitioner's history of evading statutory payments such as GST to government departments, resulting in the cancellation/suspension of GST registrations in the State of Andhra Pradesh for nearly two years due to non-payment of GST dues and non- submission of GST returns. Furthermore, the petitioner was reportedly arrested for irregularities committed, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed by the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, on account of poor maintenance of cleanliness and diet quality. These factors influenced the official respondents in favoring the bids submitted by Respondent Nos. 6 and 5. It is further stated that the contract was awarded to the 6th respondent and 5th respondent on 27.03.2023. Since then, the 5th respondent has been continuously supplying the diet without 7 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 interruption to patients and duty doctors. The contract tenure for the 5th respondent is one year, from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024. Subsequently, the contract in favor of the 6th respondent is scheduled to commence immediately after the completion of the 5th respondent's contractual obligation, starting from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025. The balance of convenience favors the continuation of the 6th respondent as the diet contractor for the remaining period of the contract.
8. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 submits that various documents have been issued by respective authorities in favor of the 6th respondent, demonstrating their capacity and competency to perform the contract. These include a solvency certificate by Bank of Baroda, experience certificates, performance certificates from different hospitals, good conduct certificates, Food & Safety Standards Authority of India certificates, GST registration certificates, turnover certificates, and copies of tender notifications. These documents attest to the bona fides of the 6th respondent in securing and performing the contract. It is emphasized that the petitioner, as a bidder, is not entitled to question or challenge the terms and conditions in the bid document or the contract concluded in favor of the 6th respondent. Reference is made to a relevant case where the writ petitioner sought direction to release outstanding amounts payable towards GST, highlighting the petitioner's inability to challenge the terms post 8 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 participation in the bidding process and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
9. The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit, denying the allegations. It is contended that, with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, the petitioner approached Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana and filed W.P.No.7302 of 2021, wherein the Court allowed the writ petition on 04.07.2023. It is contended that the action of the respondents disqualifying the petitioner from the tender process on the ground which is not existing and the evaluation of tenders violating the tender rules and conditions is gross abuse of process of law, violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner operates within the domain of supplying diets to Government Hospitals and other institutions in both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Currently, the petitioner serves as a diet contractor to various healthcare facilities including Government General Hospital Vijayawada, Government General Hospital Srikakulam, Area Hospital Sattenapalli, Government General and Chest Hospital Hyderabad, and King Koti Hospital Hyderabad, providing dietary provisions to inpatients and attending physicians. It is emphasized that the petitioner is fully qualified and capable of fulfilling 9 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 dietary supply contracts within Government Hospitals. The third respondent Superintendent of Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupati, issued a tender notice dated 24.03.2023, inviting sealed tenders for the supply of diets to inpatients and attending physicians at the said hospital.
11. It is asserted that the petitioner intended to participate in the tender process, obtained tender forms, and prepared to submit a bid. The tender process, according to stipulated conditions, involves a two-cover based system: Cover comprises eligibility, technical, and financial criteria, while Cover 2 pertains to financial bids/offers. It is emphasized that any tender submitted in violation of these mandatory requirements will not undergo evaluation. Following the opening and acceptance of valid tenders in Cover, evaluation takes place, followed by the opening of Cover 2 for financial bids. The contract is awarded to the tender offering the lowest price, with tie-breakers determined by the highest marks in the technical evaluation.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and the fifth respondent are qualified in the technical bid and quoted the same price, namely, Rs. 72/- for inpatients and attendants. Furthermore, it is highlighted that the tender process must adhere strictly to the conditions outlined in the tender document and government orders. However, the contract was awarded to the fifth respondent, allegedly in violation of 10 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 established rules and regularizations. This action is deemed arbitrary and a misuse of power.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out a similar instance where the petitioner's diet contract was terminated by the Superintendent of Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, citing allegations from Niloufar Hospital, Red Hills. However, the termination was overturned by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, which directed that actions against the petitioner should be unbiased by any prior observations regarding the Niloufar Hospital issue.
14. Moreover, it is argued that despite the knowledge of these legal proceedings, the respondents awarded the contract to the fifth respondent, contrary to established regulations. This action is considered a breach of G.O.Ms.No. 325 MH&FW, dated 01.11.2011, which mandates that tender conditions and evaluation parameters remain unchanged to favor any particular entity. The second respondent is asserted to have no authority to alter the tender evaluation process to benefit a specific party, rendering their actions arbitrary and illegal. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner highlights that subsequent to the judgment in W.P.No. 15054 of 2020 by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, the petitioner was awarded diet contracts in various hospitals, reinforcing their capability and credibility in the field and requested to grant the relief as sought above. 11
NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender evaluation authority is not entitled to evaluate or adopt methods beyond the scope of terms of tender notice. In the instant case, the allegations and recovery ordered against the petitioner by Niloufer Hospital were set-aside in W.P.No.7302 of 2021 dated 04.07.2023. Therefore, relying upon the allegations made by Niloufer Hospital to reject the tender of petitioner on the ground of very same allegations is nothing but ignoring the judgment rendered by the Court as stated supra. Moreover, the 4th respondent herein and Maternity Hospital have made specific and categorical allegations against the 5th respondent herein, while he was a diet contractor for earlier period and issued memos against him and also he was not issued any performance certificate, even satisfactory certificate. Challenging the same, he preferred W.P.No.10457 of 2021, wherein the respondents herein filed counter affidavit and narrated the poor performance of the 5th respondent and also rejected the claim of the petitioner. In fact, the daily newspapers also reported about his poor quality and sometimes putting the patients in starving conditions. Having knowledge about the past conduct of the 5th respondent at Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupati and exercising discretionary power in favour of 5th respondent is beyond the scope of terms of the tender and contrary to their own submissions vide sworn affidavit filed by them.
12
NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further emphasized that this Court after hearing the matters passed an interim order on 27.04.2023 holding that the tender evaluating authorities went beyond the scope of the tender notice dated 23.03.2023 and accordingly the impugned proceedings awarding contract dated 14.04.2023 is suspended, but liberty was granted to the respondents to continue to supply the diet as pr the earlier procedure, till disposal of the writ petition. Therefore, this Hon‟ble Court found fault with the respondents ignoring the allegations made by them against the 5th respondent and weighing the allegations against the petitioner, which were already set-aside by the High Court of Telangana is nothing but an action of malice and malafide and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the selection by rejecting the petitioner claim and awarding contract to the 5th respondent vide proceedings dated 12.04.2023 are liable to be set-aside.
17. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Respondent No.5 in all the three writ petitions. Learned Senior Counsel draws attention of this Court to the prayer urged by the petitioner in W.P.No.10901 of 2023 wherein the petitioner is seeking a prayer to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing diet contract dated 13.04.2023 in favour of the 5th respondent as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the tender of the petitioner for supply of diet in Government 13 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Maternity Hospital, Tirupati, pursuant to Tender Notification dated 24.03.2023 by setting aside diet contract dated 13.04.2023. Referring to the prayer urged by the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel submits that, the petitioner is seeking termination of the contract of Respondent No.5 which was already awarded to him for a period of two years. When nearly one year period is completed, what remains is only one year period. Further, the petitioner seeks not only setting aside termination of contract of Respondent No.5 and seeks consideration of the petitioner‟s contract, which are two elements of the prayer of the petitioner.
18. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, as per the averments made in the writ petition, both the petitioner and Respondent No.5 have submitted their tenders consequent to the issuance of tender notification and in the technical bid, both have qualified. He submits that, both the petitioner and Respondent No.5 have secured same marks. There is certain criterion to award marks. When both have got equal marks, then the discretion vests with the Department/Employer and that is how, considering the antecedents of the petitioner, Respondent No.5 was selected and then the contract was awarded by the tendering authority.
19. Attention of this Court is drawn to the operative portion of the order in W.P.No.15054 of 20210 dated 06.10.2020, wherein it is stated as follows:
14
NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 However, it is made abundantly clear that the respondents shall be free to take action against the petitioner, but strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law. The respondents are directed to take action against the petitioner, if necessary, but uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in the orders passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No.149 of 2O2O. In case, the petitioner continues to be aggrieved by any action taken by the respondents in violation of the law, the petitioner shall be free to challenge the same.
20. Basing on the above, it is contended that, liberty was given to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law.
21. The main endeavour of the learned Senior Counsel is that the allegations against the petitioner remained static and it is not as if the petitioner was given a clean chit or as if the allegations are wrong, erroneous ex facie or that there is no evidence or there is no basis. Therefore, at the time of consideration of tenders of Respondent No.5 and petitioner, both of them have secured same marks. Leveling of allegations against the petitioner, weighed the tender in favour of Respondent No.5, since there are serious allegations against the petitioner.
22. Learned Senior Counsel emphasized the factors which lead the official respondents to select Respondent No.5 instead of the petitioner and draws attention of this Court to various clauses contained in G.O.Ms.No.325 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 15 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 01.11.2011 viz., General Tender Conditions, Process for Finalization of Technical Bid, Criteria for Evaluation of Technical Bid and Financial Bid. He accentuates that, as per the Financial Bid, the person/organization who quotes lowest rates in the financial bid will be qualified as the Diet Contractor and in case of any discrepancy, the Chairman of the District Diet Management Committee (DDMC) will take an appropriate decision. Therefore, discretion is vested with the DDMC to take appropriate decision and contends that such discretion has been properly exercised by awarding the tender to Respondent No.5.
23. Learned Senior Counsel contends that, the Chairman, DDMC, Tirupati addressed a letter 05.04.2023 informing that, Respondent No.5 has been selected for award of the contract, subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, Contract Agreement (for supply of diet in Govt. Maternity Hospital, Tirupati) was entered into between the Tirupati District Diet Managing Committee, Represented by its Chairman (Chairman/Convenor) and Respondent No.5 on 15.04.2023. It is submitted that, when the tender was award to Respondent No.5 in a proper and phased manner, any indulgence at this stage, would create any amount of hurdles. Learned counsel also contends that, no reply is filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.5, as such, the submissions made by Respondent No.5 should be treated as admission.
16
NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023
24. One of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that, the Court has to ascertain whether there was any illegality or arbitrariness in the decision making process rather than the question of whether the decision was a found incorrect. In the present case, Respondent No.3- Committee was left with unenviable task of finalizing the tender in favour of one bidder while the bids of all the three qualified bidders were the same. Respondent No.3 discharged this task, by fixing the satisfactory conduct of the bidders as the criteria. Therefore, the same principle would apply even to Respondent No.5 also and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
25. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health, appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, while adopting the arguments advanced by Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that, no specific rule or contravention of procedure was specifically pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings. Though the petitioner contends that while awarding the contract to Respondent No.5, the official respondents violated the rules and regulations, as stipulated in the G.O., no specific rule has been stated that has been violated by the authorities.
26. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Raunak International Limited vs. I.V.R. Construction Limited1, Air India Limited vs. Cochin International 1 (1999) 1 SCC 492 17 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Airport Limited2, Master Marine Services (P) Limited vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Limited3, Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka4, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vs. BVG (India) Limited5 which the learned Single Judge had referred in W.P.No.10457 of 2021 and on the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, he would contend that, Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness is pointed out. He submits that, the petitioner had committed blatant illegalities, which weighed in decision for awarding contract to Respondent No.5. In the absence of any blatant illegality and arbitrariness, while awarding contract to Respondent No.5, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
27. Learned Government Pleader argues that, in view of the language employed in the clause „Financial Bid‟ of G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011, the Chairman of DDMC is the decision making authority for awarding of contract in the financial bid to any person/organization. It is argued that, since the above said clause has never been challenged with regard to „discretion‟ of the Chairman, DDMC, thereby, the Chairman, DDMC has absolutely unfettered power to take a decision, taking into consideration of 2 (2000) 2 SCC 617 3 (2005) 6 SCC 138 4 (2012) 8 SCC 216 5 (2018) 5 SCC 462 18 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 the antecedents of the persons/organizations and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
28. Heard Sri K.M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Respondent No.5 in all the writ petitions, Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragola, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10945 of 2023, learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health appearing for Respondent Nos.1,2,3 & 4. Perused the material available on record.
29. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a diet contractor engaged in supplying diet to Government Hospitals in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Respondent No. 3 issued a tender notice for supplying diet to inpatients and duty doctors at Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupati. Despite both the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 qualifying in the Technical Bid and quoting the same price, the contract was awarded to Respondent No. 5. Leveling of allegations against the petitioner, weighed the tender in favour of Respondent No.5, since there are serious allegations allegedly against the petitioner. The bid of Respondent No.5 was preferred to that of the petitioner, keeping in view the previous conduct and antecedents of the petitioner, since the petitioner had allegedly committed several irregularities while serving as diet contractor to the Nilofour Hospital at Hyderabad.
19
NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023
30. Issuing diet contract in favour of Respondent Nos.5 & 6 has been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions. The question that arises before this Court is whether the application of such a criteria is permissible or would amount to an arbitrary action of the respondents which requires to be set-aside.
31. Normally, the Courts cannot give different interpretation to the tender terms and the duty of this Court is to verify whether the respondent followed the procedure in processing the tender or not and the Courts would not interfere with the tenders, interpreting tender conditions, relaxing any tender conditions, in view of law declared by the Apex Court in Durgawathi Devi v. Union of India THR, Its Secretary, Ministry and others6.
32. In The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. The Union of India and Ors7, the Apex Court reiterated the same principles with regard to maintainability of writ petition in tender of contractual matters, relying on the catena of judgments of Supreme Court, more particularly, Tata Celluar v. Union of India8, wherein the Apex Court laid down six guidelines which are as follows:
6
Special Leave Petition (c) No.37479 of 2016 7 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13802-13805 of 2019 dated 21.06.2019 8 (1994) 6 SCC 651 20 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The Court does no sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.
33. The Apex Court also referred to various earlier judgments in Raunaq International Ltd. V. I.V.R. Construction Ltd9, Air India Limited v. 9 (1999) 1 SCC 492 21 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 Cochin International Airport Ltd10, Karnataka SIIDC Ltd v. Cavalet India Ltd11, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd12, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair Coal Services Ltd13, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa14 and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka & Ors15 and finally concluded that the Courts should not normally intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless blatant illegality and arbitrariness can be pointed out. The controversy before this Court is to ascertain whether there was any illegality or arbitrariness in the decision making process rather than the question of whether the decision was correct. In the present case, the District Diet Management Committee discharged its duty of finalizing the diet contract in faovur of one diet contractor, thus discharged its duty. Unless, there is blatant illegality and arbitrariness pointed out in awarding the contract to any of the diet contractor, this Court cannot interfere into the matter.
34. When the High Court of Telangana in in W.P. (PIL) No.149 of 2020 merely directed the respondents to enquire about the functioning of the petitioner as a diet contractor at the Niloufer Hospital, by any stretch of imagination, the High Court had not directed that the petitioner‟s contract 10 (2000) 2 SCC 617 11 (2005) 4 SCC 456 12 (2005) 6 SCC 138 13 (2006) 11 SCC 548 14 (2007) 14 SCC 517 15 (2012) 8 SCC 216 22 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 should be terminated. It is by pure imagination of the Superintendent and Director of Medical Education that the issue had cropped up to such an extent.
35. In W.P.No.15054 of 2020 dated 06.10.2020, the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana had categorically held that the petitioner‟s contract had been terminated on the basis of the complaints filed by the junior doctors and other medical staff is baseless, since the defence of the respondents did not even find a mentioned in the order dated 29.08.2020/31.08.2020. Finally, the Hon‟ble Division Bench abundantly clear that the respondents shall be free to take action against the petitioner, if necessary, but uninfluenced by any observations made by the Court in the orders passed in W.P (PIL) No.149 of 2020. But, when the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court had specifically directed the respondents to take action against the petitioner, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order passed in W.P (PIL) No.149 of 2020. Pending this writ petition, the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana also allowed W.P.No.7302 of 2021 filed by the petitioner challenging its proceedings issued against the petitioner which were set-aside by High Court of Telangana on 04.07.2023 as under:
"Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and also the interim orders of this Court dated 24.03.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 23 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 2021 in W.P.No.7302 of 2021 the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the 6th respondent vide Rc.No.SPL/PLG/NH/2020/1544 is hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner. But however, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh, in accordance with law, in conformity with the principles of natural justice for determination of liability against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
36. Again the respondents have repeatedly stressing the poor performance, previous conduct, antecedents and deficiencies in services rendered by the petitioner at Niloufer Hospital which were already set-aside by the High Court, which is clearly untenable. Therefore, the respondents are specficially directed to consider the petitioner to participate in the ensuing contracts/tenders, on par with others, without observing previous conduct or antecedents at Niloufer Hospital.
37. The petitioner is seeking termination of the contract of Respondent No.5 in all the writ petitions which was already awarded to him for a period of two years. When nearly one year period is completed, what remains is only one year period. In W.P.No.10945 of 2023, the tenure of Respondent 24 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 No.5 is for a period of one year i.e. from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 and the tenure of contract of Respondent No.6 is from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025.
38. As discussed in the earlier paragraphs, this Court is not inclined to intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, since there is no blatant illegality and arbitrariness was pointed out. The Diet Contracts already awarded in favour of Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are not disturbed by this Court, conscious of the fact that this Court is not vested with the authority to intervene in the decision making process for award of contracts, unless there is blatant illegality and arbitrariness pointed out.
39. With the above directions, writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
a. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner to participate in the ensuing contracts/tenders, on par with others, without referring the alleged antecedents and deficiencies at Niloufer Hospital, since the said proceedings were set-aside by order in W.P.No.7302 of 2021 dated 04.07.2023.
b. Rejecting the tender of the petitioner and awarding the tender in favour of Respondent No.5 is contrary to the facts on hand and amounts to exercising power out of the scope of terms of tender in biased manner. However, since Respondent Nos.5 & 25 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 6 continued more than one year and a little period is available for completion of the tender period, the Diet Contracts awarded in favour of Respondent Nos.5 & 6, but continued on the ground that supply cannot be disturbed and they may be continued as usual;
40. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.
____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:10.05.2024 SP 26 NV,J WP Nos.10901, 10920 & 10945 of 2023 245 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION Nos. 10901, 10920 & 10945 OF 2023 Date:10.05.2024 SP