The Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that bidders must be allowed to participate in the tender process without reference to enhanced physical supply requirements introduced by corrigendum if such enhancement is alleged to be arbitrary and exclusionary. The decision affirms existing principles of fairness and transparency in public procurement and has binding precedential value for administrative authorities and subordinate courts handling public tender disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/24454/2025 of SREE VINAYAKA AGENCIES Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| CNR | APHC010480962025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 11-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | HARINATH.N |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench: HARINATH. N |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh; persuasive for other forums |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Tender Law / Public Procurement |
| Questions of Law | Whether the enhancement of physical and financial criteria in a tender by corrigendum, after the initial notification, is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where a corrigendum enhances physical quantity and financial requirements for tender participation after the initial notification, it may be arbitrary and exclusionary if it prevents qualified bidders from participating. In such cases, directing authorities to permit affected bidders to participate in the tender without reference to the enhanced requirements upholds the principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice. The Court relied on its earlier similar decision in WP.No.23615 of 2025. The reasoning balanced the necessity for robust competition in public procurement with the duty to not arbitrarily exclude competent bidders. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | WP.No.23615 of 2025 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reaffirmation of the principles of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness in state tender processes; relied on prior High Court direction in a similar fact scenario |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged a corrigendum enhancing both the physical and financial requirements for supply in a tender for uniforms, coconut oil, rin bar soaps, and chappals for public health and engineering workers. The petitioner, though financially qualified, would be excluded solely based on increased physical supply requirements. The Court had previously, in a similar matter, directed authorities to permit participation without reference to enhanced requirements. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tendering authorities within Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and agencies involved in public procurement across India |
| Follows | WP.No.23615 of 2025 (AP High Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Establishes that bidders excluded solely due to enhanced physical requirements by corrigendum can seek participation on parity with others.
- The court’s exercise of jurisdiction ensures tender conditions serve the public interest and do not arbitrarily limit competition.
- Explicit reliance on earlier High Court judgment (WP.No.23615 of 2025) for similar relief strengthens the binding nature of this order.
- Strengthens principles of fairness and transparency in public procurement.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court heard the petitioner’s challenge to a corrigendum that doubled the required physical supply and raised financial criteria for a municipal tender.
- After noting the exclusionary effect on the petitioner, who fulfilled the original financial conditions but could not meet the new physical requirements, the Court questioned the arbitrariness of such sudden enhancements.
- The Court relied on its own previous order (WP.No.23615 of 2025), where similar directions had been granted, permitting participation regardless of the enhanced bid requirements.
- Both parties (petitioner and respondent) eventually agreed that the petitioner should be allowed to participate on original terms, and the Court formalized this consensus by granting the writ.
- The order was grounded in administrative law values: natural justice, fairness, and transparency in the tender process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the enhanced physical and financial requirements introduced by corrigendum as arbitrary and exclusionary.
- Contended that the petitioner is otherwise financially and technically qualified.
- Claimed that the enhancements were made only to eliminate the petitioner from the competition.
- Sought direction to permit participation without reference to the enhanced requirements introduced subsequently.
Respondent (Tirupati Municipal Corporation)
- Through its standing counsel, submitted that the petitioner could be permitted to participate in the bid without reference to the enhanced physical quantity proposed in the corrigendum.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a large supplier with substantial annual turnover, sought to participate in a 2024-2025 tender floated by Tirupati Municipal Corporation for supply of uniforms, coconut oil, rin bar soaps, and chappals for various categories of municipal workers. Initially, the tender set specific financial and physical supply requirements. Subsequently, via corrigendum, both the physical and financial thresholds were sharply increased, and the supply period was reduced from four months to two months. The petitioner challenged these post-notification enhancements, contending they were arbitrary, unfair and prevented legitimate participation.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked for the writ of mandamus.
- The Court referenced fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution in the context of fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative action.
- No detailed analysis of tender-specific statutes; the focus was on constitutional and administrative law principles.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court noted and followed its prior order in a similar case (WP.No.23615/2025), thereby reinforcing consistency in judicial approach to similar tender disputes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The ruling affirms and explicitly follows principles and reasoning from prior High Court order (WP.No.23615/2025), ensuring judicial consistency and predictability in tender-related disputes.