IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18298 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sai Ram Development Society, Seetharampuram, Ongole, Prakasam District, rep. by its President Smt. P. Venkataratnam, W/o. Nagendram R/o. Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Co-ordinators of Hospital Services, Government Hospital, Opp: Prakasam Bhavan, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Cheerala, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to allot the sanitation work in the 3rd respondent hospital pursuant to the tender notiﬁcation R.C.No.161/A1/2005 dt. 7-6-2005 to the highest tender though the petitioner society is the lowest tender, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to allot the sanitation contract work to the petitioner society and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. K.SOMAKONDA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with Registration No.144 of 2000 on 18.03.2000. The petitioner Society carried on sanitation works in Area Hospital, Chirala, Prakasam District, for two years. The contract of sanitation works expired in the month of May, 2008. Even after expiry of the contract, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stated to have asked the petitioner Society to continue sanitation works till ﬁnalization of the tenders for the ensuing years. The Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Chirala, Prakasam District-3rd respondent issued a tender notiﬁcation in RC No.161/A1/2005, dated 07.06.2008 inviting sealed tenders/quotations for sanitation and other works in Area Hospital, Chirala. In pursuance of the said notiﬁcation, the petitioner Society submitted its tender. The petitioner Society claims that it quoted the lowest amount of Rs.39,999/-. Therefore, the decision taken by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to allot the sanitation works to M/s.Users Committee, Kothapet, Chirala-4th respondent, according to the petitioner Society, is not legal and proper. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.08.2008. An interim order came to be passed on 12.09.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.23819 of 2008, which reads as hereunder: “There shall be interim stay with regard to the ﬁnalization of the tenders pursuant to the Tender Notiﬁcation RC No.161/A1/2005, dt.07.06.2008, if not already finalized, for a period of three weeks. Notice.” 3. M/s.Users Committee, Kothapet, Chirala Mandal, ﬁled WPMP No.27449 of 2008 seeking its impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition. The said WPMP came to be allowed permitting the proposed party to come on record as 4th respondent in the writ petition. 4. 3rd respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. A.S.Krishna Murty, Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Chirala, Prakasam District has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the petitioner Society, 4 th respondent and one M/s.Abhyudaya Yuvajana Seva Sangham, Tangutur, responded to the tender notiﬁcation. The tenders came to be scrutinized by the Committee comprising of Commissioner of Municipality, Chirala, Tahsildar, Chirala Mandal and Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Chirala. The petitioner Society found to be the lowest bidder. The second lowest bidder is M/s.Abhyudaya Yuvajana Seva Sangham, Tangutur and the third lowest bidder is M/s.Users Committee, Kothapet, Chirala Mandal-4th respondent. The petitioner Society and M/s.Abhyudaya Yuvajana Seva Sangham, Tangutur, did not produce valid registration certiﬁcates and therefore, their tenders came to be rejected. For better appreciation, I may refer para.5 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “5. In reply to para.3 of the aﬃdavit, it is submitted that the petitioner Society, Ongole is a registered ﬁrm vide No.144/2000 of Registrar of Societies, Ongole and registration of the said ﬁrm was valid from 2001 to 2006. Further the petitioner ﬁrm was not having valid registration at the time of opening of tenders i.e., on 24.06.2008 and the petitioner ﬁrm applied for continuation of registration with the Registrar of Societies, Ongole on 14.07.08 and after opening of the tenders. A copy of letter addressed to the Registrar on the receipts issued by the Society (letter enclosed). In reply to para.4 of the aﬃdavit it is submitted that the petitioner Society was carrying sanitation work in Area Hospital, Chirala since last 2 years and 4 memos were issued to the petitioner Society for violating the terms and conditions of the agreement and penalty of Rs.2,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each time was imposed for above violation. Further a memo was also issued on 28.05.07 regarding improper sanitation work (copies enclosed). It is further submitted that the petitioner Society continued to take up sanitation work till the tenders were ﬁnalized because to make stop gap arrangement and the same was approved by the Hospital Development Society, Area Hospital, Chirala. Otherwise, the sanitation work will suﬀer if nobody does the sanitation work. As and when the tender ﬁnalized a new contractor will take up the work and due to this the petitioner Society was allowed to continue.” It is further stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the bid of M/s.Users Committee, Chirala-4th respondent was accepted as it produced required documents. The Commissioner, A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Hyderabad-1st respondent acted according to the decision taken by the Hospital Development Society and forwarded the same to the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Government Hospital, Ongole-2nd respondent to issue sanitation order to M/s.Users Committee, Chirala-4th respondent. Thereafter, the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Govt. Hospital, Ongole-2nd respondent, forwarded the sanction order to the Commissioner, A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Hyderabad-1st respondent for granting permission and the 1st respondent permitted the 2nd respondent to act as per Hospital Development Society Resolution to issue sanitation order to M/s.Users Committee, Chirala-4th respondent on 10.09.2008. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued work order to the 4th respondent on 12.09.2008 to take up sanitation work in Area Hospital, Chirala for 6 months. It is also stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the husband of the petitioner is working as Ambulance Driver in District Hospital, Ongole and he is the permanent employee of the Government. As per tender notiﬁcation, the relatives of the Government employee shall not participate in the sanitation tenders. Selection of sanitation works allotted to M/s.Users Committee, Chirala-4th respondent was based on the recommendation of the three member committee of Hospital Development Society. 5. The case of the 4th respondent is that the petitioner Society had no valid registration under the Societies Registration Act as on the date of opening of the tenders i.e. on 24.06.2008. Under Condition No.1 of tender form, the Society must have valid registration. The petitioner applied for renewal of the registration of the society on 14.07.2008. Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner Society is legal and proper. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Society submits that once the petitioner Society is registered, there is no need of getting the registration certiﬁcate renewed and in which case, the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner Society on the ground of non-renewal of the registration certiﬁcate is wholly unjustiﬁed. A further submission has been made that the petitioner Society is presently carrying on the sanitation works even after expiry of the initial period of contract and it is deemed that the certiﬁcate issued under the Societies Registration Act is in force. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the factual aspect of the petitioner Society submitting the application for renewal of registration certiﬁcate on 14.07.2008 is not contradicted by the petitioner Society by way of ﬁling a reply aﬃdavit and therefore, the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner Society on the ground of it’s not having valid registration certiﬁcate as on the date of tender i.e. 07.06.2008 cannot be found fault. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the tender of the petitioner Society as well as another tenderer viz., M/s.Abhyudaya Yuvajana Seva Sangham, Tangutur came to be rejected on the ground of their not having valid registration certiﬁcate as on the date of the tender and therefore, the action of the respondents 1 to 3 is legal and proper and it does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The 3rd respondent has speciﬁcally stated in the counter- aﬃdavit that as on the date of calling for tenders, the petitioner Society has no valid registration certiﬁcate. The 4th respondent in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the impleadment petition stated that the petitioner Society submitted application for renewal of its registration on 14.07.2008. The pleas taken by the respondents 3 and 4 are not contradicted by the petitioner Society by filing a reply affidavit. 12. Learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 placed before me the entire ﬁle relating to the issue of the tender notification. The ﬁle contains the tenders of the petitioner Society and the 4th respondent apart from other tenderers. The tender conditions indicate that the tenderers shall furnish a report on the ﬁnancial standing of the bidder, such as proﬁt and loss statement and auditor’s reports for the past ﬁve years, and estimated ﬁnancial projection for the next two years. The documents enclosed to the tender submitted by the petitioner Society contain proﬁt and loss statements of the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The petitioner Society did not ﬁle the proﬁt and loss statements for the years 2007 and 2008. The 4th respondent ﬁled proﬁt and loss statement and auditor’s reports for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The documents enclosed to the tenders submitted by the petitioner Society and the 4th respondent indicate that the petitioner Society has not submitted the proﬁt and loss statements for the years 2007 and 2008. Indisputably, the petitioner Society submitted application for renewal of the registration certiﬁcate on 14.07.2008. It goes without saying that as on the date of the tender notice i.e. 07.06.2008 the petitioner Society has no renewal of the registration certiﬁcate. Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner Society cannot be stated as illegal and arbitrary. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:03rd November, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within two days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}