M/S Krishna Pharmaceutics Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S KRISHNA PHARMACEUTICS, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR KAKUMANU VENKATA KRISHNA MOHANA RAO S/O.K.PURNA CHANDRARAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.D.N0.9-62-44, PLOT NO.103, DRAIN STREET, ISLAMPET, VIJAYAWADA-1, NTR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R.DISTRICT-520003.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-515001.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners representation dated 20.2.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

¶17

2

¶18

India, and consequently direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court, and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.02.2026 within a stipulated time, pending disposal of the above writ petition in this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.VM CHIRANJEEVI KOLLA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6880/2026

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶30

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶31

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 20.02.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass such other order.”

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶33

Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner became a successful bidder pursuant to the public auction conducted for supply of four surgical items pertaining to the Nephrology Department on 27.01.2026. Even though the petitioner became L-1 bidder, but for the reasons best known to the respondents no orders were issued to the petitioner and the said auction is not confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, neither finalized the tender nor revoked or cancelled the tender entered any agreement after the petitioner became L-1 bidder pursuant to the tender. For which, the petitioner also submitted a represented dated 20.02.2026 requesting the respondents to finalize the tender and

¶35

enter an agreement and place orders for supply of drugs as per

¶36

4

¶37

terms of the tender conditions. Even after lapse of nearly one month, the respondents neither considered the representation and placed the purchase orders nor replied to the petitioner informing that the subject tender was cancelled or withdrawn or somebody were selected. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶38

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader furnished the written instructions dated 12.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that while the petitioner quoted the price for dialyzer @ Rs.6,111/-. For the quantity i.e., 800 which was required in the hospital, if it is calculated it will be nearly three crores. But whereas the other person who participated in the tender has quoted in respect of same item i.e., dialyzer of 800 quantity, he quoted Rs.565/- each. Therefore, the respondents by considering the other agent, can save so much of amount to the public exchequer. Then the respondents addressed a letter to the petitioner informing that the offer made by some third party is for Rs.565/- and requested the petitioner, if it is ready to supply at that rate i.e., Rs.565/- to place order. But the petitioner reduced his rate up to Rs.2068/-, but not agreed to supply rate as offered by the other agent i.e, M/s.Om Lakshmi Ganapathi Medical & Surgical. Due to parity of more than four times, the respondents decided to place purchase order to the third party agent to save the amount at the

¶39

5

¶40

public exchequer, which is a paramount consideration while dealing and finalizing.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. It is settled law that even though the tenders were called for and the tenderer was selected as L1 bidder, until and unless any agreement was entered by the tendering authority, L1 bidder do not have any vested right pursuant to the declaration as L1 bidder. In view of the settled principle, even in the present case except claiming by the petitioner as L1 bidder, the tendering authority neither finalized the tender nor entered any agreement with the petitioner. On perusal of the written instructions submitted by the respondents, it is observed that difference in prices is certainly a paramount consideration in weighing the public interest by saving so much amount for the public exchequer. If that so, the prime consideration for passing the order in favour of the third party, the same cannot be found fault with the respondents and it cannot be termed as neither arbitrary nor violation of the terms of the tender.

¶42

Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to dispose of the representation of the petitioner by stating the reasons why the

¶43

6

¶44

orders were not placed with the petitioner, within a period of three (3)

¶45

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶46