Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 14.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by allowing Writ Petition No.18854 of 2023 filed by the respondent No.1 herein cancelling the Contract for Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital awarded to the appellant herein.

2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 herein are the State-respondents. The respondent No.5 is the Superintendent, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, who issued the e-tender Notification dated 15.06.20222 for providing Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services at the said hospital, as stated above.

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of cancellation of the Work Contract. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has already worked in terms of the awarded contract from June, 2023. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Contract is due to end in June, 2026. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant/respondent No.6 was not technically qualified in terms of the mandatory conditions stipulated in the Tender documents and that the licence for insecticides issued to the appellant as well as the writ petitioner was one and the same, i.e., for Commercial Pest Control Operations. Senior Counsel relies on the relevant clause in the tender document i.e., Clause No.4.2.3(i) to urge that the appellant satisfied the relevant clause in the Tender and was consequently awarded the work in June, 2023.

4. Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner submits that the licence issued to the appellant was inconsistent with the relevant Tender document since the licence was only for the purpose of stocking insecticides as opposed to Commercial Pest Control Operations which was the intent of the relevant Tender condition.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health supports the case of the appellant. The respondent No.5/Tendering Authority is not represented.

6. The primary issue which the learned Single Judge heard and adjudicated was whether the appellant/respondent No.6 was qualified in terms of the mandatory conditions stipulated under the Tender document. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of the writ petitioner and held that the appellant was not qualified for the work.

7. The e-Tender document issued by the Government of Telangana/Director of Medical Education was in relation to provide Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. The relevant clause is under Section-IV “Eligibility Criteria”. Clause 4.2.3 provides for “Other Valid Supportive Documents” for showing the eligibility for technical qualifications. Clause 4.2.3 (i) states the following:

               “4.2.3 (i): Commercial pesticide applicator license obtained from the controlling Authority to carry out the business or MOU (as per Annexure-5) with having such license.”

8. The above clause makes it clear that the document required in support of technical qualification is “Commercial Pesticide Applicator License” as per Annexure-5. Annexure-5 is a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to be executed on a Non-judicial Stamp paper between the parties. The determining factor which would be evident from Clause 4.2.3(i) for the purpose of eligibility of the bidder is ‘Applicator License’. Rule 10(3A) of The Insecticides Rules, 1971 (‘1971 Rules’) provides, inter alia, that any person who desires to undertake pest control operations, with the use of certain chemicals, shall apply for licence in Form VI-A with the requisite fee for each place of operation. Rule 10(4) of the 1971 Rules provides for a licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides subject to the conditions mentioned under the said Rule.

9. From a comparison of Rule 10 (3A) and Rule 10 (4) of the 1971 Rules, it is evident that both the Rules are distinct from each other and operate for different purposes. Rule 10(3A) is relevant for Pest Control Operators while Rule 10(4) is for Selling, Stocking or Exhibiting for Sale or Distributing Insecticides.

10. Notably, the licence obtained by the appellant/respondent No.6 was under Rule 10(4) of the 1971 Rules which is for sale, stock or distribute insecticides. This would be evident from paragraph 4 of the licence. On the other hand, the licence obtained by the writ petitioner was under Rule 10(3A) and makes it clear in paragraph 4 thereof that the licence is for “Commercial Pest Control Operations”. The relevant Rule is clearly stated in the licence itself.

11. Apart from the licences issued to the parties, a Memo dated 21.04.2022 issued by the office of the Commissioner of Agriculture, states in paragraphs 1 and 3 thereof that the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture has notified the Licensing Officer to issue Licences to manufacture Insecticides and Commercial Pest Control Operators dealing with restricted pesticides specifically mentioned in Rule 10(3A) of the 1971 Rules which is for fumigation related operation with notified insecticides. The response given by the Department of Agriculture on 15.06.2023 to a query raised in this respect further clarifies that pest control operations in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Mehdipatnam and Government Medical College, Nagarkurnool is as per Rule 10(3A).

12. Therefore, the clear indication from Clause 4.2.3(i), which mentions “Applicator Licence”, would point to a licence under Rule 10(3A) of the 1971 Rules and not a licence under Rule 10(4) of the said Rules. This view would be fortified from the Tender document itself which specifically mentions in Clause 6.2.4 – “Pest Control Plan” which in turn mentions under Clause 6.2.4 (B) “Commercial Pesticide Applicator Certificates or Licenses”. Clause 6.2.4 (B) is consistent with Clause 4.2.3(i) of the Tender document in terms of requiring the eligible bidder to have a Commercial Pesticide “Applicator” Licence.

13. Moreover, the licence obtained by the writ petitioner under Rule 10(3A) of the 1971 Rules clearly states in paragraph 2 that the licence is for carrying out Commercial Pest Control Operations, whereas the licence obtained by the appellant mentions that the licence is for manufacture/sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides. We also notice that the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge states in paragraph 3 that the appellant submitted a valid pest control applicator licence issued under Rule 10(3A) of the 1971 Rules, whereas the licence disclosed before the Court was under Rule 10(4). Therefore, it is undisputed that the licence obtained by the appellant was not in conformity with the Tender conditions.

14. We hence agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the action of the District Collector and the Superintendent of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital in awarding the work to the appellant, despite the appellant not fulfilling the mandatory technical condition, was arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the Tender.

15. Although learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the Writ Petition was filed after considerable delay, we find the said submission contrary to the record. The writ petitioner wrote to the District Collector on 18.07.2022 objecting to the deficiencies in awarding the work to the bidders in question, including the appellant. The District Collector however did not pay heed to the writ petitioner’s objection and proceeded to award the work to the appellant in June, 2023.

16. Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has raised several other grounds for cancelling the Tender and the decision to award the Tender to the appellant. Senior Counsel has relied on the appellant’s violating Clauses 4.2.1 and 4.2.3(n) of the Tender document with regard to required General past experience and the fact that the Tendering Authority proceeded to club different works in order to award the contract to the appellant. We however deem it fit only to deal with the violation of Clause 4.2.3 of the Tender document in terms of the lack of technical qualification of the appellant for being awarded the tender.

17. Moreover, the very fact that the appellant has continued with the work for 2½ years would not cure the arbitrary action on the part of the respondents/Tendering Authority. An illegality cannot be permitted to be continued once the said action is brought to the notice of the Court.

18. In Bakshi Security and Personnel Services (P) Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed (P) Ltd. ((2016) 8 SCC 446) cited on behalf of the appellant, the Supreme Court classified requirements in a tender notice into two categories and those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. – Titagarh Wagons Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. ((2017) 7 SCC 486), the Supreme Court further held that administrative decisions must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principles of reasonableness but also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.

19. In the present case, the action of the Tendering Authority in awarding the work to the appellant can certainly be classified as mala fide since it is clearly contrary to the terms of the Tender document. Bakshi Security and Personnel Services (P) Ltd. (supra) in fact assists the writ petitioner since Clause 4.2.3(i) of the Tender document is an essential condition of the Tender since the Tender itself was for providing Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services requiring the bidder to possess appropriate licence which was essential to the work contemplated in the Tender.

20. The above reasons persuade us to agree and accept the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition and directing the concerned authorities to reconsider the bids in accordance with the tender conditions and award the contract to the writ petitioner only if the writ petitioner is otherwise found to be eligible of the requirements. We hence do not find any merit in the present Writ Appeal.

21. W.A.No.1335 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.