Dismissed

Sri Ranga Raja Enterprises v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2026WP/36311/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a government tender condition as arbitrary. The petitioner, having participated but failed as an unsuccessful bidder, was not permitted to challenge the conditions maintained that only those keeping out of the bidding process can challenge such conditions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; consequential miscellaneous petitions closed.

Sri Ranga Raja Enterprises Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010709132025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 36311/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

SRI RANGA RAJA ENTERPRISES, D.NO. 9-3-33, GROUND FLOOR, BRAHMIN STREET, KOTHAPET,VIJAYAWADA - 520 001, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

M/S K V PHARMA, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR. SHEIK MAQBUL BASHA GROUND FLOOR 19/301, VARASUMAIAH STREET, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

DIRECTOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, , HANUMANEPTA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the tender

¶19

¶20

notification vide Rc. No. 2154/G1/GGH/KDP/2021 dated 03-12-2025, particularly condition No. lO(vii), as illegal and arbitrary consequently Set aside the impugned condition and all consequential proceedings by directing the respondents to conduct the tender afresh with fair and reasonable conditions ensuring healthy competition and pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned tender notification vide Rc. No. 2154/G1/GGH/KDP/2021 dated 03-122025dated

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.TALLAPRAGADA SRIRAM

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

2.GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

¶28

3.P NARASIMHULU

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO:36311 OF 2025

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶35

“ issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the tender notification vide Rc.No.2154/G1/GGH/KDP/2021 dated 03.12.2025 particularly condition No. 10(vii) as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the impugned condition and all consequential proceedings by directing the respondents to conduct the tender afresh with fair and reasonable conditions ensuring healthy competition and pass such pass such other order or orders….”

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein assailed the earlier tender notification dated 03.12.2025 alleging that the condition No.10(vii) is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Pending the challenge, the petitioner herein had participated in the tender process and became unsuccessful bidder. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the subject tender condition warrants submission of experience certificate of 5 years regarding supply of surgical disposables and lab chemicals to the Government Teaching Hospitals in the State or Corporate hospitals with 750 bed capacity. The same should be accompanying by the

¶38

¶39

purchase order received from the institutions apart from experience certificate. The said condition is contrary to the real situation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, since there are no hospitals which are having 750 bed capacity except some corporate hospitals and the hospitals running under the State Administration. Therefore, getting such certificate is far fetching exercise to the petitioner as well as other intending bidders. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶40

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that there are hospitals within the State of Andhra Pradesh which are also having one thousand beds capacity, especially teaching hospitals at Guntur, Tirupati and Visakhaptnam. The said clause was envisaged for effective implementation of the object of the tender. He further submits that it is settled principle of law that once an individual/ bidder participated in tender process, he cannot be permitted to challenge the tender conditions. In view of the said principle, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He also asserts that the tender process also completed and contract was also awarded to the successful bidder and agreements were also entered to that effect.

¶41

Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. The fact remains that the subject tender was finalized and tender was awarded and also entered an agreement with the successful bidder i.e., 4^th respondent herein. As contended by the learned Government Pleader that the person who participated in the bidding process is not entitled to challenge the tender conditions on the ground that the same are preventing the effective participation to the tender process. But the case in hand, the petitioner himself

¶42

¶43

is also participated in the bidding process. Therefore, having participated, he cannot canvass on behalf of the other intending bidders. If the petitioner intend to challenge the tender conditions, the petitioner can challenge the tender conditions by keeping himself out of the bidding/tender process in view of the settled principle of law. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner participated in the bidding process. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to challenge tender conditions on the ground that the same are not valid and it may hit Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and all the grounds raised lacks merits and liable to be rejected. As such, writ petition itself is not maintainable.

¶44

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶46

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

02.03.2026 BSP/TPS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶51

WRIT PETITION No.36311 of 2025

¶52

02.03.2026 BSP/TPS

Sri Ranga Raja Enterprises v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ranga Raja Enterprises v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polimera Pentayyanaidu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sreenivasa Detective Security Service Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Sreedhar Engineering Works Vs Sri G.Sai Prasad, I.A.S.

J. Rama Sundara Rao Vs Peeyush Kumar

Avvaru Srinivasa Rao Vs Gunturu Sarvani

Water Users Association Vs Shashi Bhushan Kumar