Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court ruled that a person to whom a contract was awarded contrary to tender conditions is not entitled to the principles of natural justice at the time of cancellation. It has to be taken into account that the party, who approaches the court, should be fair and without any blemish.
The petitioner, being awarded a contract contrary to the tender conditions, cannot be permitted to plead violation of principles of natural justice. The judge reasoned inviting tenders for providing Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services in Government General Hospital in Nalgonda district in Telangana. The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by Sai Security Services Private Limited against the Government General Hospital in Nalgonda terminating a tender issued in its favour.
The authorities issued a tender notification in July 2022. A1 Facility and Property Managers were declared as L1 (lowest bidder 1). However, the tender was awarded to the petitioner. The said actions were rescinded and the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer by the proceedings in March 2024.
The authorities found that L3 and L2 are the same property ownership agencies and they were blacklisted by the government for violating the tender conditions by Sir Ronald Ross Institute of Tropical and Communicable Diseases, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
It was noticed that, three sanitary employees attempted to suicide as the existing agency i.e., Sai Security Services did not pay their salaries regularly and has been harassing the employees of the hospital.
Referring to the facts on hand, Justice B.Vijaysen Reddy said that the counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that an audit objection was taken to the manner in which the contract was awarded to the petitioner by violating the terms and conditions of the tender.
The audit department vide letter dated 22.11.2023 pointed out lapses under three heads viz. (i) Awarding contract to L3 tenderer, (ii) Non-considering the highest turnover of respondent No.4 in finalisation of tender and (iii) Non-conducting of performance assessment of the agency.
The audit department has given detailed findings on all the three points and added it is, thus, clear from the above that the tender process followed by the respondent No. 3 in awarding the contract to the petitioner was not correct.
“It is not the case of the petitioners that the audit enquiry is incorrect and contrary to the procedure laid down under law. The audit enquiry/report was not challenged by the petitioners. There is no material placed before this court to rebut the contention of the respondent No.3 that cancellation of the tender of the petitioner No.1 was in public interest and to achieve public policy,” the judge added.
HC sets aside jail sentence
Justice K. Surrender of the Telangana High Court set aside the sentence of seven years of imprisonment imposed by the VI Additional & Sessions Judge Nizamabad in a murder case.
The victim Rishi Kapoor and the accused Shaik Mujeeb were taking coaching classes for Spoken English in Ratna Spoken English Institute at Kamareddy. Rishi Kapoor went missing in September 2008 and his body recovered after two days. The police proceeded with the confession of the accused.
According to the version of the prosecution, the investigation revealed that the appellant and the deceased Rishi Kumar were friends. The appellant took Rishi Kumar on September 23, 2008, near the Bund and both of them consumed toddy.
The appellant asked Rishi Kumar to forget about the girl namely Brahmani and during the said conversation, both of them fought with each other. The appellant allegedly beat Rishi Kumar with a stick and also with a stone and pushed him into the tank to kill him.
Rejecting the evidence that formed the basis for the conviction, Justice K. Surrender said, “The very version regarding the confession made to PWs.4 and 5 throws out any amount of doubt. P.Ws.4 and 5 versions are not believable. There is no reason why he would confess to both of them separately on the date of the alleged incident. PWs.4 and 5 did not state about relation with appellant. Except stating that the appellant threatened them not to disclose it to anyone, no reasons are given under what circumstances such confession was made.”
Dealing with the forensic evidence, the judge said, “The cause of death, according to the post mortem report Ex.P9 and the evidence of P.W.11/Doctor is asphyxia due to drowning. However, no injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. In the absence of any injuries that were found, it is highly suspicious regarding the version of the prosecution that the appellant had beaten the deceased with a stick and threw him into the tank. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion cannot form basis to convict the appellant. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.”
