Dismissed

M/s Y Koteswar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Feb 2022WA/40/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal challenges the dismissal of a petition against the award of a diet contract to a private firm at Gandhi Hospital. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's order, finding the appellant failed to submit mandatory annual turnover and Income Tax Returns, thus rendering the bid non-compliant.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal No.40 of 2022 was dismissed without costs.

M/s Y Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 40 OF 2022

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause^'1 5 of the Letters Patent filed against the order Dated21-12-2021 passed in writ petition No.25151 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

tt//s Y Koteswar Rao, A Proprietorship firm Rep by its Proprietor Sri Y Koteswar Rao S/o Uma l\rlaheshwar Rao, Aged about 63^years, Occ :Business,^{Rl/o Flat No 82 409 lndis} One City Towers Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Medical and Health Department Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Diet Managing Committee, Office of the Joint^{Collector Hyderabad.}

¶15

The District Medical and Health Officer, Hyderabad District.

¶16

The Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, rep by^its Superintendent.

¶17

M/s Sahasra,528ll H S Darga Rayadurgam Serilingampally^{R R District Rep. by} its Managing Partner B Deepika.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the^{Learned Single Judge in WritPetition No. 2515'1of} 2021 dated 21 .12.2021 as well as^{the Proceedingsin Rc. No.HDS/GHS/202111955:} and Rc. No. HDS/GHSt2021119551136,^{dated 20.1 .2022of the 4th Respondent} herein.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant^: SRI.GODA^SIVA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1to 4 : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY} WELFARE (TG)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.5 : SRI SURYA SATISH}

¶24

The Court made the following^JUDGMENT

¶25

THE HON'BLE '] HE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'B,E SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR^SHAVILI

¶26

WRIT APPEAL No.4O OF 2022

¶27

JUDGMENT: (Per tl e Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Clnndra Slrurrna)

¶28

The prese: rt writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 21.12.2021 pa;sed in W.P.No.25151 of 2O2l filecl by the appellant herei r.

¶29

The facts of the case reveal that a tender notification was issued on 23.09.2021 for supply of diet in tht: Gandhi Hospital, Secr, nderabad and pursuant to the raloresaid tender notifica -ion, ten participarts have submitted their technical bids rs well as financial bids in two covers as per the terms and :onditions of the tender notification.^'Ihe facts further reveal t hat out of ten participants, three participants were disquali ied in technical bid itself and seven participants qu alified in the first round and four participants have cleared tl ,e second round and the work was entrusted to the respond:nt No.5 in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal.

¶30

The appe lant/writ petitioner stated before thr: learned Single Judge tl Lat he is having al experience of 28 years as a Diet Contract<r, he has quoted Rs.36/- per patient and attendant. Hc wever, as per the marklng done by the'. ' respondents, 1 e has received oniy 23 marks. The contract

¶31

was awarded to^{the respondentNo.5. The learnedSingle} Judge, after taking^{into accountali the grounds raised by} the appellant/petitioner^{has dismissed the writ petition' The} Order passed by^{the learnedSingle Judgein paragraphs14} to 17 read as under:-

¶32

"14. ln^{the counterfiled by the respondent No.4 on behalf} of the official^{respondents,it was stated that the petitioner} has not submitted^{annual turnover for the latest year i e'} 2O2O-2O21 and^{also not submitted IT returns for the said} year- Thus, the^{petitionerdid not fulfill the tender} conditions. Further^{the petitioner does not have loans} stondi to question^{the action of the respondentNo 2 in} awarding contract^{to the respondent No'S' The respondent} No.5 has fulfilled^{the conditions mentionedin the tender} document as^{per clause4(B)(i)(b).The respondent No'S} submitted evidence^{of renderingservicesin two hostels for} around 550^{to 600 students including servicesrendering at} present at TIMS, Gachibowli,^{Ranga Reddy District, which} is 126 1 bedded^{hospital.Therefore,the committeehas} awarded 95^{marks to the respondent No'S in the technical} bid. Out of^{10 tenderers, technicalbids of three tenderers} were rejected.^{The tenderof Y. Srinivas was rejected since} he quoted^{less than Rs.36/-.Out of the remaining four} tenderers, one^{G. Jaipal Reddy quoted Rs'40/-' All others} including the^{petitioner quoted Rs'36/-' The respondent} No.2 committee^{has to consider and take a decision as to} who would be more^{suitablein executing the diet contract} in the respondent^{No.4 hosPital.}

¶33

ln the^{counter filed by the respondentNo'5, it was} stated that^{the petitioner has misledthe Court and made} false allegations.^{The respondentNo 5 has more than 5} years experience in^{providing catering services to hostels} and produced^{relevantcertificates in that regard' Thesame} was considered by^{the olficialrespondentsqualifyingthe} respondent No.S^{to the nextlevel.}

¶34

¶35

The g'ound urged by the^{petitioner is that the} respondent IIo.5 is not^qualified. However, in^{view ol the} categorical s.atements made in the counter^{affidavitsfiled} by the respcndents No.4 and 5 that^{the respondentNo.s} has five yea s experience as Diet Contractor in^rendering catering sen ices to hostels, colleges, railwa-,-^{canteens etc.} which remai r uncontraverted, this Court finds that^there are no merit, in such submission.

¶36

17 . Furth, r, responding to the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted tf at the Government of India has issued circular dated 09.09 202 1 extending time lor submitting IT retr-trns for the Asses sment year 2021-2022 and the same has t,r be considered t y the respondent No.4. ln the opinion of this Court such⁽ ontention is liable to be re.jected as it is not for this Court t, r re-write the eligibility conditions or interpret the conditio; rs to suit the petitioner. The fact remains that the tender c, rndition with regard to IT returns has not been fulfilIed by t le petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition '

¶37

In order t,r appreciate the controversy involving in the present case, i1 is necessary for this Court to iook into the tender conditio ls of the Notification. Clauses 4-D and 5-A of the tender r otification, i.e., Conditions and Tender

¶38

Evaluation reac s as under:-

¶39

*4. SELECTI fN CRITERIA:-

¶40

A to C xxxxx>

¶41

D. Documents to be submitted under B above

¶42

(i) Experience Certillcate/s issued b1,the concerned hospital authorities or institutions, ts the case may be. dull signed b1' tl.re authorised and competent offic a[ affixing the seal.

¶43

(ii) Audited approved annual tinancial statements lbr immediate preceding 3 yea s.

¶44

(iii) Income Tar retums filed for the immediate preceding 3 years. (*)

¶45

¶46

(iv) GST rcturns lilcd lbr the imnrediate^{preceding3 years. (*)}

¶47

(*) Whrrc thc tcnder is fbr hospital ol below 50 beds^{and the} 'fcnderer is not able to submit the IT & GST retums on valid and reasonable^grounds, the^{District Diet Management} Committee being the tender^{invitingauthority,shall havethe} righl to accept the tender on such^{terms and conditionsas it may}

¶48

consider necessar)^{andappropriate.}

¶49

(v) A solvency certificate issued by any ofthe^{schedulecommercialbanks} where the Tenderer^{is holdingthe account,for Rs.5'00 lakhs if the tender is} for 500 bed hospital;^{Rs.2.00lakhs if the tender is for 200 bed hospital;} and Rs. I .00 lakh if^{the tenderis for I 00 bedhospital}

¶50

(vi) Satisfactory performance certificate^{issued by the competent}

¶51

authority of the^{government hospitals/institutionswhere the Tenderer} had the experience^{underitemI above.}

¶52

5. TENI)ER IiVALTiA]'IO\

¶53

A. Opening of Cover-l^{of Tender and Ilvaluation}

¶54

(i) On the date and^{timenotified. cover-1 ofthetenderreceived will} be opened in thc^{prescnoerl1'the representativesol theTenderers (not} more than one representing^{eachTenderer with due authorisationfrom} the Tenderer) if^{opled. Thename of the Tenderer,the name of the} hospital for which^{tendered andthe details of the EMDpaid will be} announced. Eaclr^{such representative shall have to sign the Registerof} their presence.^{Theauthorisation letter will have to be surrendered'} (ii) Firstly. responsive^{checkwill be carriedout to ensure that all the} relevant documents^{and tender formatsare duly submitted completein} all respects^{along with therequisite EMD.Where the EMD is not paid or} the requisite^{documentsarenot submittedor incomplete in anyrespect} will be considercd as^{non-responsiveandshall be liable for rejection'}

¶55

All the responsive^{tendersr.','ill be evaluated based on the weightageof}

¶56

marks as under:-

¶57

sl	(riteria t.nderCl.l(b)	Maximum	Marks
No		Marks	Secured
I	TechnicalExperience	50
	a)Mininrum^{pcriod ofexPerience}	35
	b)Forcrerladditional^{year of} experience3marksPer Year^uptoa MaximunroI15marks	l5	I
	Annuall-tlrnovct	2,i
	aiMinimunrannual^turnover	l0

¶58

¶59

b) Fo every additional annual 5
tumoY( ' of Rs.2.00 lakls each year
for all t re 3 years period. I mark
3 lT Reh -ns subrnitted l5
a) For i ll 3 years l0
b) For each additional year I 5
mark er year not exceeding 5
marks
1 CST R tums subnlitted t0
a) For , ll 3 years
b) For each additional rcar I
mark er year not exceeding 5
marks.
I ot l 100

¶60

In respect ol items i & 4. rvhere the lenderer is not liable tbr payme ( of Income Tax or GS'f. as the case Inal- be. mirlimum nlarks will bt awarded. provided the tenders gives an undertaking to that eflect.

¶61

The short listi rg at this stage is on pass or fail basis. Only rhose Tenderers, who secured , ot less than 70 marks out of 100 marks. rvill be qualified tbr opening ofCo^,er-2 (Financial Bid).

¶62

The afore said clauses make it very clear that the

¶63

contractor was required to submit annual turnover for three years and the appellant/petitioner did not submit the annual turnove: for the year 2O2O-21 . The undisputed facts also reveal thar the appellant/petitioner did not submit the IT Returns fo ' the year 2O2O-2t. Not only this, the respondent No. i fulfilling the tender conditions as per clause 4(BX0F) of the -ender notification has submitted evidence of rendering servi les in two hostels for around 550 to 600 students inclu, ling the services rendering at present at TIMS, Gachibo,vli, Ranga Reddy District, which is a 126l bedded hospite l. The appellant/petitioner as well as the irespondent No 5 have quoted Rs.36/- per patient and

¶64

¶65

attendant,^{and therefore'in the evaluation process as the} respondent^{No.5 has received more marks than the} appellant/petitioner,^{the work was allottedto the respondent} No.5. It^{is an undisputed fact that the appellant/petitioner} did not^{submit annual turnoverfor the latest year 2O2O'21} nor the^{Income Tax Returns for the salrle yeal' and as in the} evaluation^{process, the respondentNo'5 has receivedmore} marks^{based upon the documents furnishedregarding ttre} experience,^{this Courtis of the considered opinionthat the} learned^{Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ} petition^{filed by the appellant/petitioner' This Court does not} find any^{reason to interfere with the order passedby the} learned^SingleJudge'

¶66

1S 6. In^{the light of the aforesaid' the writ appeal} dismissed.

¶67

Miscellaneousapplications,ifanypending,shallstand dismissed. .There^{shallbe no order as to costs'}

¶68

SECTION^OFFICER

¶69

To 1. rwo CCs to GP^{FOR MEDICALHEAL-TH AND FAI\illLY WELFARE(TG)' High}

¶70

2 glliE'll:'i.iq":%"tr{ffi!'to'ftiss"','J,,", 3 4 5.^{. Two CD} One^{sPare CoPiescoPY} SA Y,/

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10212022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.40 ot 2122

iii: S14 r"'
( a;.
0 / riB 282

¶76

DISMISSING THE W.I

¶77

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶78

@"W

M/s Y Koteswar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Y Koteswar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sartaj Pershad Vs The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Deputy Collector

Kondakalla Rajamani Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Sanskruthi Township Vs The State of Telangana and 10 Others

Suo Moto Vs Union of India

B.S. Enterprises Vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

B.S. Enterprises Vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.