Telangana High Court

WP/29129/2009 of Syed Afzal Basha Vs The District Medical and Health Officer, on 31 December 2009

MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 29129 of 2009 ORDER: The 2nd respondent issued a tender notice in June 2009 inviting tenders for award of DIET contract for the Government Hospital at Raypur. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent submitted their tenders. However they are not

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 29129 of 2009

ORDER:

The 2[nd] respondent issued a tender notice in June2009 inviting tenders for award of DIET contract for theGovernment Hospital at Raypur. The petitioner and the3[rd] respondent submitted their tenders. However they arenot opened for quite some time and it is stated thatcorrespondence ensued between respondents 1 and 2. The 2[nd] respondent passed an order dated 08.12.2009canceling the tender for the financial year 2009-10 bystating three reasons which are referable to the petitioner. This writ petition is filed assailing the same.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader for Medical, Health andFamily Welfare.

The 2[nd] respondent stated three reasons forcancellation of the tender process. The first is that thepetitioner filed Solvency certificate issued by thePanchayat Secretary, whereas the requirement under thenotification is Solvency certificate issued by the MandalRevenue Officer. The second is that tender forms set isnot attested and the third is that the order said to havebeen issued in favour of the petitioner by the ExecutiveEngineer was not attested. Once the tender notificationitself is cancelled, the petitioner cannot have any genuinegrievance. Obviously when a fresh notice is issued, thepetitioner can participate in it duly rectifying the defectspointed out in the impugned order. Till such process is undertaken, the fresh contract cannot be awarded infavour of the 3[rd] respondent or any other individual but theexisting arrangement may go on.

This Court expresses its concern as regards themanner in which the 2[nd] respondent issued the impugnedproceedings. He is the Deputy Civil Surgeon and a wellqualified officer. The order which is brief in its content, isfull of mistakes. It cannot be expected even from anaverage high school student. It is hoped that theconcerned officer would bestow his attention. It reflectsupon his functioning, ability and efficiency. The tenderprocess shall be initiated as early as possible.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

Note: Issue C.C. in one (1) week.

(B/o) JSU

_________

31.12.2009

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

JSU

WRIT PETITION NO : 29129 of 2009

Date: 31.12.2009

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead