Petitioner firm challenged a fresh tender notification for supply of ortho implants to Government General Hospital, Nalgonda, claiming its contract ran till 2025. The court found the three-year MoU was not on record or per note approval; tender was awarded to another bidder. Writ petition dismissed, no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[33001
HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial OriginalJurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAV OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITIONNo;2778t oF 2024
Feween:
Mis. D. R.Mediequip, Rep by its ProprietorDhanavath RangaS/ o' LaluOff' iii;r"illJi; rza,'znoho,ir, Fiarasnam Bazar' Nalgonda'Telangana'
AND
...RFSPONDENTg
Petitionunder Article226 ot lhe ConstitutiQn of lndia praylngthat in ths clrcumstancesstatedan tne affidayit filed theregith, the High 89lrt maV be please{ toissue an order, direction more particularin the nature of mandamus' a' Declaringthe action of the Respondents,more specificallyRespgn-dentl)'lo 3 ln fssulnglendernotificationdated06.0g'2O24videRciNo'98/GGHAJLG/2Q24with respecttoPetitionerscontractwhichissubsistingtillls.os.2025eodprgaeeding withthetenderprogessaqbad,illegq!,arQitrary'violativeofArticlel4'19ofthe Constitutionoflndiaandconsequentiqllycqlcelthgsameandb.Censequenlially directthe Respondentst9 cqntinuethe Petitionerhqrein till th9 pxpiryof the .contraQtperiodi.e ,3 years till 1S 08 2025 as per proceedingsRc' No' 7 671 tP1 t GGHtNLGtZO2z dated 1 8 08'2022'
IA NO :'lOF 2024
PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstarlcesstatedin the affidavitfired in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto direct
the Respondents rnore particularly Respondent No.2 and 3 to continue the contract executed b'y the Respondent No. 3 dated.19.08.2022 till 19.0g.2025.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsi.anees slated in lhe affidavitfiled in support of rhe petition, the High coqrt may be please{ to stay allfurthqr proceedinr3s respect of tender notification bearing RC. No,9g/GGH/NLG1 -2924D .t, 06.99.2024, issued by the RespondentNoS. 2 and3.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024 F-.------------
Be.,ween:
...PEITIONEBS/RESPONpENTS AND
['l/... Q .F Ve.d]qqVip . Bepo_V its proprietor Dhanavath RqnS? S-/ o. fatu Off. AI Plot No 5-1.?3.Znd ftoor. PrakashamBazar. Naigonda, feTdn-$bnal--
...RESPONDENTlPET!TIONER
Petitiqn under section 15i cpc praying that in the circqmstanqes statg{ i4 the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may he pleased to vacate the ln[erim order in dated o3t1ot2o24 in wp.No.z77gvt2oz4 and dismiss thewrit petition.
Counsel fo1 the Pqtitioner: SRI R.ANURAG Gouns6l for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: Gp FOR MEDICAL & HEAI-TH FW Cgunsel for the Respondent No.2: cp FOR REVENUE Counsef for the Respondent No.4: -
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
HON,BLE SRI JUSTICENAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A
WRIT PETITION No.27787OF 2o24
ORDER:
The 3'I respondent issuedtendernotificationdated 06.A9.2024 andproceeding with the tender process, despite being aware of thefactum of existenceof petitioner'scontract which is subsisting Lill18.08.2025for supply ofmedrcal implants. Thc sameis questioned in this Writ Petition
It is stated, a contractagreementwas drawn in the form of MoUbetween petitioncrhrm and the 3'd respondenton
\ \
)
19.O8.2022, clause (4) specihcallv states that the e.ffect of contract is for thre c years and it ma1, be extende(l, therezr.fte r, on mutual cons3r1t. In view of the same, the contract i,; up to 19.O8.2025
V/hrle so, the 2"a respondent issued l::ttcr f proceedings ctn 02.O8.2024 stating that permission acccrdcd to petitioncr is onlr. for trvo years and the same is expir.ing on 18.O8.2024,.hr:refore, petiLioner submitred representai ion on 07.O7.2024 dul."' cxplaining the f:rcts ancl circurnstanccs, ,that contract vvould expire on 18.O9.2025, houer.er, ri,ithoul considering the representation nor consiciering the r:xis[ing contract and permission order gir.en bv the 3.<t r.esponcl,::nl, he had illegallr-, arbitrarily issued a fresh tender notifi,:ation, impugned in this Writ petition and initiared the t:nder process. Even as on Loda_v, petitioner,s con[raci, it is stated. is in subsistence and no lermination proceedings were rssued by the 3.d respondent.
Learned counsel for petitioner Srr R. Lnurag submits that t.he action of the 3.d respondent in tssuinp fresh tender notificiltion u.ithout either terminating the co n[ract entered into g.rth the 3rd responclent or passing a reasoned orcler
W7 '7
)
/
l
considering representationof Petitionerfor the notice dated O2.O8.2O24 is nothingbut violativeof principlesof natural justice. According to him, the termsof contract prevailover any discrepancy or anyinconsistency in other contractagreement, as such, the 3'drespondenlhas no authoriffto issue a new tender for the contract['hich is subsisting till date'
approved try Lhe Joint Collector, Nalgonda for tu_o vezrrs from 19 .O8 .2022 to lg.Oa.2O24 who is appointe<i :rs Ch airman, Hospital Der.elopment Societ1,, Nalgonda vide G.O.M:.;No. 1, rlatcd 03.01.-2O2O, but Lhe order to supply impl.rnts q.ar,, issued by the ther-r Superintendent, GGH, Nalgonda .br th rc: years effectir.e from 19.08.2022,,vhich is contrast ro th(. notc approval.
Itls stated that the alleged IVIoU cla ccl )9.(t8.2O22 is not part ol' the record and it is noL in accor(lance lith the note approval, so also the representation datr:d ro.cg.2Ct22 referred to bv pe titioner as to whether propr;sais nade ripon it to the Joint Colk:ctor for modihcation of contract ,r,nurc ti) three years also is rLot t_.'orne out of this office record. It Isi stat(,d that the office ulde proceedir-rgs dated 02.Og.21o24 rnformt_cl pcritioner that two yea-rs contract for the supply of implanr tems to GGH, Nalgonda is e xpiring on 1g.Og.2024. For thc r.c.pre sen tatlon dated 07.O8.2O24 submitted by petitioner, the 3.(i rcspc,ndent uide merrro dated 09.Og.2024 inforrned that ir is rlor feas b1e to extend the ortho implant contract for an_v furthc,r pcrio,l and petitioner subntitted another representation dated g.Og.2i)24 to refund the EMI) of Rs.2,00,OO0/_ rvhich u.as dcpo:;rtcci bl them
)
Y
,1
during the tender in2022 since contractperiod *'as not extended bv this office.
It is also stated that as thccontract expiry date was approaching, anote file was circulatedto the DistrictCollector, Nalgonda duly requesting toissue necessary ordersregarding fresh tenders for which,District Collectoragreedtothe procurement of implants throughHospital TenderCommittee under Chairmanshipof DPC ar-rd till thc completionof tenders, or[ho impiants maybe procuredthroughDCHS, Nalgonda; accordingly, orders \vereissued toDCHS, Nalgonda for procurement of Ortho implantson receipt of purchaseorders from Superintendent, GGH,Nalgonda and simultaneousiy,fresh tenders were called fortowardssupplyof Orthoimplants for a period of two years. Pursuantto lhe Lender, pctitionerherein brought the tenderapplicationbut did not submit any sort of technical bid or Iinancialbid lorms or participate in tenders' However, the followingthree bidders have participatedin the process 1) M/s Ravi Agencies,Nalgonda, 2) M/s Siri Surgicals, Nalgonda and M/sAdva Medicare,Secunderabad On opening the technical bid ofthe above bidclers on 27 'O9 2024 and lrnancial bid on 01.1O.2024,M/s Siri Surgicals,Nalgondahave
t t
6
(
qualified lor linanciai bid and the District purchase Cornmittee has come tc, a resolution to award the tencler to Nl i s Siri Surgicals Nalgonda for two years with effect from i6_1O.2A24 o 1r.1{J.2026 (ir .596 discount on all the 384 iterns ancl provide Arthroscop_r' instrument set to GGH, Nalgodna.
I
7
Y
and also inviewof the well settled 1aw laid dou'n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to theeffect thatthere should be no judicial review in commercial mattersunless a case of arbitrariness, maLa ftde, bias or irrationalityis made out and that the Court should refrain from imposingits decision over the employerwith respect to whether or notto accept thc bid of a tenderer, this Court is not inclined toaccept the request of petitioner. The Writ Petition is therefore,iiableto be dismissed.
costs.
g. Consequently, themiscellancousApplications,if
any shall stand closed. I
SD/-V. KAVITHA ASS T NT REGIS
//TRUECOPY// S CTIONOFFICER
To
4 Trjyo CD Copies PSK. BS
HlGH COURT
DATED:13 10212025
ORDER
WP.No.27787 of 2024
t oR 1t rE S ,,i;
c r
lirir Z[t]
,trr- pFo
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION YUITHOUT COSTS
/.</ ./d ,/7,/r5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a fresh tender notification could be issued while the petitioner's supply contract for medical implants was allegedly subsisting till 19.08.2025.
Whether judicial review lies over the tender process absent arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s D.R. Mediequip, Rep by its Proprietor Dhanavath Ranga
The State of Telangana, Rep by Principal Secretary, Dept of Health, Medical and Family Welfare
The Additional Collector (Revenue), Nalgonda District, Nalgonda
The Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Nalgonda
M/s Siri Surgical Parts Pvt Ltd
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
