Dismissed

M/s Ssv Creations v. The State of Telangana and 3others

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022WP/44214/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging a government tender notification that mandated online-only e-procurement for diet supply services. The court held that the tender authority has the discretion to choose the mode of bidding and that the petitioner had no legal right to compel offline submission, finding the general orders cited irrelevant to the manner of tender issu

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

M/s Ssv Creations Vs The State of Telangana… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2022)

t^32s6 I

, i ) i I I I I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI^{SUDHEER KUMAR}

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:44214 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s SSV Creations, Flat No.601 , Suryamithra Residency, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar District. Rep by its Managing Partner Asampalli Srinivas,^S/o A.Narayana, Aged about 46 years

¶11

..PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Health,^Medicaland Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶14

2 The Director of Medical Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad f

¶15

3 The Diet Management Committee, Office of the Director, MNJ lnstitute of Oncology and Regional Cancer Centre, Red Hills,^Hyderabad.

¶16

4 The Director, MNJ lnstitute of Oncology and Regional Cancer Centre,^Red Hills, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased'to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe action of the respondentNo.3 in} issuing the tender notification vide tender^{documentNo.P/MNJIOand} RCCl2022l11lDlET TENDER/3S3,^{dated0711112022 calling forwardthe diet} contractors for supply of diet to^{inpatients and duty doctors for a period of 2} years, through e-procurement mode (Online) only even though there is no such prescription made in G.O.Ms.No.325, dated 0'111112011 as well^as G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 2110312022,^{without givingopportunityto other eligible} contractors to submit tenders through^{offline mode and alsoissuingthe tender} contrary to the^{guidelines prescribed} in^{G.O.Ms.No.325,dated0111112011as}

¶19

arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles, apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petrtioner under Articles, 1 4, 1 g and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the tender notification issued by the respondent No.3 vide tender document No.P/lvNJto and RCCt2o2zllltDlET TENDER/353, dated 0711112022.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

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 to stay all further^proceedings in pursuance of the tender notification vide tender document No.P/MNJIO&RCC|2022|11lDtET TENDER/353, dated 0t-11-2O22 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SANJEEV GILLELA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH & FW

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: - - - -

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

l I f

¶27

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶28

WRIT PEIITION NO.442 14 OF 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is Illcd qucstioning the tender nodfication bearing No.P/ MNJI()&RCC 12022 / I 1/DIET TENDER/3S3 dated 07. 1 1.2022 calling for the tenders from the diet contractors for supply of diet to the inpatients and duty doctors for a period of two years through e-procurement mode only and in not allowing submission of bids through offline/physical mode, as illegal and arbitrary and also contrary to the procedure prescribed undcr G.O.Ms.No.325 dated Oi.1 1.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 21.O3.2O22.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner in rhis Writ petition is that the petitioner and others are nol beinq permitLed to submit their bids in response to the impugned rcnder notification through physical and offline mode and only online bids are being allowed. In support of this contention, Iearned counsel placed reliance on the above G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.20i1 and G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 2 1.O3.2022.

¶32

A perusal of the said G.Os. shows that they are only dealing with certain tender conditions and other procedure that is required to be followed and the qr_ralifications that are

¶33

), MSK,J W.P.NO.44214 0F 2022

¶34

required to bc satisllcrl 1r, 11-," bidclers and thc\r are nothing Lo do n,ith thc rnanncr irr rr.lrich the tender notification is to bc issucd and rhc manr-rel- r,t rvhrch bids arc to be subrnitted. lt is settled law thirt the 1r:rrrl,.rr irtviting authority/ employer is frec to prescribe aDy condiLions. rvhich are not unreasonable and arbitrary and also to chrrosr: Lhe procedurc and the manner in which the lcnrlcrs arc to il( submitted.

¶35

The lca;'nccl Arlclirional Advocate Gencral also placed before this Court a cop. of G.O.Ms.No.20 Information Tcchnology & Communicariorrs Department dated 06.O7.2OO4 issued by thr: Clovcrnmtnt wirerein it is stated that the Govcrnment has deciclt:rl io cxtend e-procurement bid to all works, goods and serviccs covering all departments, public sector undertakings anrl iocal bodies of the Government of Andhra Pradcsh from O|.O4.2O14. The said G.O. is still in operation ancl applicablc Lo thc State of Telangana and it is only in the light of the said po|r:y decision taken by the Government, the impugned tender notifir:ation also issued called for the bids on online mode.

¶36

Both thc G.(ls. on u,hich the learned counsel for the petitioner plac:cd reliancc zrrc totally irrelevant and are of no use to support the contcnLior o[ the learned counsel for the

¶37

MSK,J w.P.NO.44274 0F 2022

¶38

petitioner. Calling for bicls through online is the procedure adopted by the Government since long time and the pctitioner has no such legal or consritutional right [o compel the respondents to call for tenders in any particular mode or in a parlicular manner. It is for the respondents to decide such aspects and this Court, in exercise ol jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannoL enter into that arena.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioncr failed to point out any arbitrary or illegal action or violation oi ar-ry statutory provision in issuing the impugned notification and calling for bids only in online mode. In the absence of any infringement of a Fundamental Right or legal right of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this Wnr petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is clismrssed.

¶40

There shall bc no order as lo costs. Misceilaneous

¶41

applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

¶42

SD/-C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASStSTATTREGlSTRAR //rRUE CoPY// (ap SECTION OFFICER

¶43

¶44

To, '1 . One CC to SRI SANJEEV GILLELA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH & FW, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies

¶45

BN SB .N-----

¶46

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t i l

¶47

; I i i i i r : I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212022

ORDER

WP.No.44214 o12022

rtl E STAT 6
o
-)
11 t{ [Y ?m
io
).
:i- - .,,

¶53

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

¶55

w\rr
("

M/s Ssv Creations v. The State of Telangana and 3others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Ssv Creations v. The State of Telangana and 3others

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

B.Y. Patil Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.V.N. Singamohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

G. Gopichand and 3 others Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Neeradi Savitha Vs State of Telangana

Sri Mamilla Bheem Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Bakka Lakshmi Vs State of Telangana