Partly allowed

M/s S.S. Consultancy v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC28 Feb 2023WP/38219/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging a bidder's disqualification due to blacklisting, citing the lack of challenge to the successful award. Conversely, it allowed a petition seeking to permit the successful bidder to commence work, directing the State to comply once the stay was removed.

What did the court decide?

W.P. No. 35487 of 2022 dismissed; W.P. No. 38219 of 2022 allowed with direction to respondents to permit petitioners to carry out the awarded work.

M/s S.S. Consultancy Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.35487 and 38219 ot 2022

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 35487 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited, 3'd Floor, Uma Enclave, Road No.9 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034. Through Shyamsunder Reddy Gopu Director.

¶10

V. Amarnath, S/o. Sri VRK Rao Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business C/o. Agile Security Force Private Limited 3rd Floor, Uma Enclave, Road No 9 Banjara Hills' Hvderabad - 500034

¶11

...pETrroNERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Superintendent, Government General and Chest Hospital, Hyderabad. 2. State of Telangana, Represented by Principal Secretary, Medical Health-and Family Welfare Secretariat, Telangana.

¶14

Diskict Collector, Hyderabad District.

¶15

...RES'ONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

¶17

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction to the Respondents, and i. To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to qualify the Petitioner No.1 Company and set aside the Evaluation Sheet (filed as Exhibit P8 herein) uploaded on the e-procurement portal of Respondents on 2010612022 (i.e., bid evaluation opening date) in relation to Tender Notification No.G1/GG and CH/l HFMS/8312022 - 2023 dated 2510512022 whereby the Petitioner No.1 Company was disqualified and thereby withdraw its comments of black listing the Petitioner No.1 Company herein.

¶18

ii. To drrect the Respondent No.1 to consider the bid submitted by the Petitioner No.'1 Company for further eva luation/fina ncial evaluation and conduct the bid on its merits.

¶19

iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favor of the petitioner along with cost of the petition.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 15-1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Evaluation Sheet (filed as Exhibit P9 herein) uploaded on the e-procurement portal of Respondents on 2010612022 (i.e., bid evaluation opening date) in relation to Tender Notification No. G1/GG and CH/IHFM SlB3l2022 - 2023 dated 2510512022 whereby the Petitioner No.1 Company was disqualified.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶23

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 the ongoing tender process in relation to Tender Notification No.G1/GG and CH/IHFMS/83/2022- 2023 dated 2510512022 and restrain the Respondents from declaring any bidder as L1 and from issuing any contract / Letter of Award in favor of any bidder/ any other ongoing process till the pendency of the present Writ Petition.

¶24

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶25

Between:

¶26

1 . The Superintendent, Government General and Chest Hospital, Hyderabad. 2. State of Telangana, Represented by Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Secretariat, Telangana.

¶27

District Collector, Hyderabad District.

¶28

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶29

AND

¶30

1 M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited,3'd Floor, Uma Enclave, Road No.9 Pgnjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 Through Shyamsunder Reddy Gopu Director.

¶31

2 V. Amarnath, S/o. Sri VRK Rao Aqed about 48 vears. Occ. Business C/o. Agile Sec.urity Force Private Limited 3rd Floor, Uma Enclave, Road'No.g Banjata Hills. Hyderabad - 500034

¶32

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶33

!-,

¶34

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 vacate the interim order granted in l.A.No.2/2022 in W.P.No.3548712022, dt 13 09.2022.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. GANDHAM DURGA BOSE

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'t & 2: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 38219 OF 2022

¶39

Between:

¶40

M/s S.S. Consultancy, (Out Sourcing, Manpower supply and Security Services), Rep. by its Proprietor B. Venkatesham, Son of Late B. Ramulu, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Contractor, R/o H. No.5-5-1261|RE|101 , Royal Enclave Apartments, Opp. D Mart, lndira Nagar, Phase-ll, Vanasthalipuram, Rangareddy r]:F,Eiif,B3rt%

¶41

AND

¶42

The State of Telangana Others, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶43

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶44

The Superintendent, Government General and Chest Hospital, Errumnuma. Hyderabad.

¶45

M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited,3d Floor, Uma Enclave, Road No. 9 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034. Through Shyamsunder Reddy Gopu Director.

¶46

(Respondent No.4 impleaded as per Court Order, dated 28.02.2023 in l.A. No 2 of 2022 \

¶47

..RE'P.NDENTS

¶48

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Directions, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to prevent to my work orally in respect of providing lntegrated Hospital facility lvlanagement Services in 3rd Respondent hospital in not implementing the 2nd respondent^proceedings no. G1/GG and CH18312022-23, Daled^0810912022, ignoring my valid and eligible tender is illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, without transparency, not bonafide and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2ndand 3rd Respondents to permit me to start the work at 3rd respondent hospital forthwith.

¶49

-l

¶50

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶51

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit the petitioner to start the lntegrated Hospital facility Management Services work in 3rd Respondent hospital forthwith in the interest of^justice and fair play, otherwise, the petitioner would suffer serious hardship and irreparable loss.

¶52

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶54

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH &

¶55

FAMILY WELFARE

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRl. GANOHAM DURGA BOSE

¶57

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶58

rEZ

¶59

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.35487 AND 3a2L9 OF 2022

¶60

COMMON ORDER:

¶61

These two Writ Petitions are interrelated and in respect of the very same subject matter and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.382 19 of 2022. 2. The brief facts of the case that lead to liling of these two Writ Petitions are as under:3. The respondent No.3 herein issued a tender notice bearing No.G I / GG&CH / IHFMS / 83 I 2022 -23 dated 25.05.2022, calling for tenders for providing lntegrated Hospital Facility Management Services in Government General and Chest Hospitai in Hyderabad District in the State of Telangana (hereinafter referred to as 'servicesJ. [n response thereto, the petitioners herein as well as respondent No.4 submitted their bids on^{'e-procurement} platform aiong with certain others. When the bid submitted by respondent No.S herein was declared as technically not responsive on the ground that, the respondent No.4 herein was blacklisted, respondent No.4 herein approached this Court by frling W.P.No.354B7 of 2022 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order, dated 13.09.2022, directed maintenance of sfatus guo obtaining as on that date.

¶62

:21'.

¶63

MSK.J wp^j548? 2022 & wp 18219 2022

¶64

W.P.No.3B2 19 of 2022 is fi1ed by the petitioners seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in preventing the petitioners in providing the services ia terms of proceedings No.Gl/GG&CH I 83 I 2022-23, dated O8.O9.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶65

¶66

Respondent No.4 herein got itself impleaded as respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.38219 of 2022. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.4, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.35487 of 2022 that the action of the respondents in disqualifying respondent No.4 in the technical bid on the ground that respondent No.4 was blacklisted by the respondents is totally illegal and arbitrary as the said proceedings under which respondent No.4 was blacklisted was already suspended by this Court, by an order, dated 08.O4.2022, in W.P.No. 17910 of 2022 and the said order of interim suspension is still operating. Thus, it is contended that the action of the respondents in disqualiSing respondent No.4 on the ground of respondent No.4 was blacklisted is totally unsustainable. Thus respondent No.4 sought for setting aside of the disqualification of its technical bid and to consider its bid for further evaluation, including for financial evaluation. As already noted above, this Court while entertaining W.P.No.35487 of 2022, directed maintenance of slatus quo by an order, dated 13.O9.2022.

¶67

::3::

¶68

J!,ISK.J Wp 35487 j022 &. wp J8219_2022

¶69

W.P.No.382 19 of 2022 filed by the petitioners, who is one of the bidder in response to the tender notice in question, contending that his bid was accepted by the respondents and the work in question was awarded to the petitioners through proceedings, dated O8.O9.2022 and the petitioners having accepted the said award of work, submitted a letter, dated 12.09.2022, to respondent No.3 herein expressing its willingness to commence the work from 13.09.2022. Bttt the respondents have not permitted the petitioners to commence the work. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by frling the above Writ Petition seeking a direction to respondent No.3 to permit the petitioners to proceed with the execution of work/rendering services in terms of the tender notice in question. When the said Writ Petition came up for admission before this Court having noticed the pendency of W.P.No.35487 of 2022 and interim order passed therein, this Court directed listing of both matters together.

¶70

This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, called for the records from the oflicial respondents and also directed the learned counsel for respondent No.4 to produce the details of the price bid submitted by

¶71

¶72

MSK.J \p l51li7 2022 & Wp .18219_2022

¶73

respondent No.4. As is evident from the record and from the details of the price bid submitted by respondent No.4, it is evident that respondent No.4 herein was disqualified only on the ground that it was blacklisted by the authorities and there is also no dispute that the said order of blacklisting was suspended by this Court in Writ Petition No.17910 of 2022. Thus, the action of the respondents in disquali$,ing respondent No.4 in the technical bid on the ground that respondent No.4 was blacklisted is totally illegal and arbitrary as the said blacklisting was already suspended by this Court as early as on 08.04.2022 i.e. prior to the date of consideration of technical bid of respondent No.4 and the said order of suspension is still in operation.

¶74

The work in question was awarded in favour of the petitioners herein on 08.O9.2022. This Court by an interim order, dated 13.09.2022 in W.P.No.354B7 of 2022, directed the respondents to maintain stahls quo obtaining as on t-hat date. Thus, by the date of passing of the interim order of status quo by this Court, the petitioners herein was already awarded the work in question. Respondent No.4 herein, having come to know about awarding of the work in favour of the petitioners herein on Oa.Og.2022 and about hling of W.P.No.38219 of 2022 before this Court seeking the relief as noted hereinabove, filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking to come on record as respondent No.4 in

¶75

_--,

¶76

¶77

MSK,J Wp_354A7 _2022 & wp 38219 2022

¶78

I I

¶79

W.P.No.38219 of 2022 on 14.10.2022. Thus respondent No.4 herein is fully aware of the petitioners herein being successful in the tender process in question. But, for the reasons best known, respondent No.4 herein has not taken steps to amend the relief sought for in W.P.No.354B7 of 2022 or to question the award of work in favour of the petitioners herein by initiating appropriate proceedings. In the absence of the petitioners herein being impleaded as respondent in W.P.No.35487 of 2022 and in the absence of proper challenge to the proceedings, dated Oa.O9.2O22 under which the work in question was awarded in favour of the petitioners herein, no relief can be granted in W.P.No.35487 of 2O22. Hence, W.P.No.35487 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed.

¶80

Even otherwise, considering the price bid of the petitioners as well as respondent No.4, by awarding the work in question in favour of the petitioners, the state is no way incurring any loss or any disadvantage. On the other hand, the petitioners herein is the one, who is not facing any allegations and on the other hand, it is respondent No.4, who is facing the proceedings of blacklisting though the same is interdicted by this Court and the matter is pending for consideration. For the said reasons also, this Court is not inclined to interfere in W.P.No.35487 of 2022 in exercise of its discretionary^jurisdiction under Article 226 of tl:e Constitution of India.

¶81

::6::

¶82

MSK.J wp 15487_2011& Wl) -i8219_2022

¶83

¶84

According to respondent No.3 the only reason for not allowing the petitioners herein to execute the work in question is the status quo order passed in W.P.No.354a7 ol 2022. Consequent upon dismissal of W.P.No.35487 of 2022, the hurdle in allowing the petitioners herein in executing the work in question is removed. Consequently W.P.No.382l9 of 2022 is allowed and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to take all necessary steps to permit the petitioners to carry out the work awarded in favour of the petitioners through proceedings No.Gl/GG&CH I 83 I 2022-23, dated 8.09.2022, in accordance with law.

¶85

1 1. Accordingly, W.P.No.35487 of 2022 is dismissed and W.P.No.38219 of 2022 is allowed, as indicated hereinabove.

¶86

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this

¶87

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶88

SD/-P.^{CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA} // ASSISTANT^REGIS R

¶89

//TRUE^COPYfl SECTION FFICER

¶90

To,

¶91

,ip,gE$1#I',t;e.f,-;#,'Jffi^{;fi:::u"";"''} ;i#SxIU'Hjd*]',:3:Y"?'Fj:",'$j:f 'd5" j""?:TilL":"'{:J'-:u35: :?lofEh:"''n,oil,0,[3T,"?,i'.iS]?[]:i{PXf^{i,'"J3,1#3r*,,ncourtrorthe} ror the^{State or reransanaat}

¶92

Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶93

, +f: "'"llif"tf*'lXg:lt::t,tfn'&,n e. 6'"!"cti,;^{s"i n.k. Layap,akash Rao, Advocate [OPUC]} 9. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶94

CHR GJP n

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810212023

COMMON ORDER

1ttt- srar!
q
/./
1r tr$ 1s8 5
f:
r{C
-+<==

¶100

W.P.Nos.35487 and 38219 of 2022

¶101

DISMISSING THE W.P.No.35487 OF 2022 AND ALLOWING THE W.P.No.38219 AF 2022 WITHOUT COSTS

M/s S.S. Consultancy v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s S.S. Consultancy v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

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

Ravinder Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Smt. Thangallapalli Raju Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Manthena Dayakar Vs The State of Telangana

Anagandula Manjula Vs The State of Telangana and 9 others

M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited And Another Vs The Superintendent And 2 Others

Balkan Sailu Yadav Vs The state of Telangan