HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 4984 of 2010 Between: G.Jayapal Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND Govt. of A.P. rep. By its Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 4984 of 2010 ORDER: The terms and conditions of the tender notification, issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 25.02.2010, is questioned in this writ petition as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 539, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 08.11.1993. The petitioner is a diet contractor supplying diet to various hospitals for the past 16 years. He also worked as a diet contractor in the Government Chest Disease and Tuberculosis Hospital, Hanamkonda from 01.04.1992 to 31.03.1997. He supplied diet to inpatients and duty doctors in the Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda from 01.09.2004 to 31.03.2006, and to the inpatients and duty doctors in the Regional Eye Hospital, Waragal. The third respondent issued a tender notification dated 25.10.2010 inviting tenders from eligible contractors for supply of diet for inpatients and duty doctors in their hospital for the financial year 2010-2011. The notification provides for issuance of tender schedules on submission of a demand draft of Rs.1,000/- drawn in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner claims to have purchased the tender form on submission of the demand draft of Rs.1,000/-; and to have noticed that the tender conditions required the tenderer to submit an earnest money deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh, a solvency certificate of Rs.5.00 lakhs, and a security deposit of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 539, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (III) Department, dated 08.11.1993, whereunder the Government issued guidelines for the use of all heads of Hospitals/Medical Institutions particularly where diet canteens were functioning. These guidelines for establishment and running of diet canteens in Government Hospitals/Medical Institutions required each tenderer to furnish earnest money deposit of Rs.50,000/-, a solvency certificate for Rs.50,000/- and a security deposit for Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel would submit that the tender notification now called for, which prescribed far higher amounts as earnest money deposit, security deposit and solvency certificates, is not only contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 539, dated 08.11.1993 but was also onerous and difficult to comply. It is necessary to note that more than 16 years have elapsed since G.O.Ms.No. 539, dated 08.11.1993 was issued prescribing the aforementioned guidelines. It would be wholly inappropriate to expect the rates prescribed in the said G.O. to continue in perpetuity. Even otherwise, the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No. 539, dated 08.11.1993, cannot, ordinarily, be enforced in Writ Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P1; Union of India v. S.L.Abbas2). The rates prescribed are neither unduly harsh nor are they such as to render it impossible of compliance. Prescription of rates is again a matter for the authorities concerned to determine and this Court would not sit in judgment over such matters which fall in the executive realm. The relief sought for in writ petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:04.03.2010 usd 1 AIR 1988 SC 1681 2 AIR 1993 SC 2444