'Suppression Of Material Fact': AP High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Plea Challenging Govt Hospital Diet Tender
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that interference by Courts in tender matters has to be minimal, while upholding the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the selection of successful bidders for a diet-supply contract at Government General Hospital, Ongole.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya dismissed the writ appeal, finding that the appellant had suppressed the filing of an earlier writ petition concerning the same tender process which was dismissed, a material fact that ought to have been disclosed.
The Court also found that the appellant had participated in the tender process at all relevant stages and failed to establish any ground for judicial interference. The Court observed:
“In the given factual matrix, learned Single Bench correctly held that there is suppression of material fact by writ petitioner. We do not find any merit in the plea raised by learned counsel for appellant/writ petitioner that non-disclosure of Writ Petition No.27573 of 2025 is not material and pertains to a separate cause of action. It may be that writ petitioner in the said petition was seeking extension of earlier contract in its favor, however, fact remains that said writ petition was actuated by floating of subsequent tender dated 23.09.2025, and that writ petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings subsequent to the said tender. It is indeed a material fact, which should have been mentioned in the present proceedings.
It is further to be noted at this stage that on earlier occasion, such a course of action had duly been adopted and was never objected to by writ petitioner, who had in fact benefited from the same. Though the writ petition could have been dismissed merely on the ground of suppression of facts, learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe that procedure adopted cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary and especially keeping in view that there was consent of majority of the qualified bidders. It is correctly held by learned Single Bench that interference of Courts in tender matters has to be minimal.”
The appellant had been providing diet services to inpatients and duty doctors at Government General Hospital, Ongole.
A fresh tender for the same services was floated in September 2025, and the technical and financial bids were opened in October 2025 in the presence of all bidders. Six bidders, including the appellant, participated, of whom five were found qualified.
After the fresh tender was floated, the appellant had approached the High Court by filing an earlier writ petition seeking extension of its existing contract. The petition was dismissed in October 2025.
Thereafter, in December 2025, the District Diet Management Committee, in December 2025, decided to adopt a lottery system for selecting the successful bidders, split the tender and curtail the contract period. All five qualified bidders, including the appellant, were present at the meeting.
Aggrieved by the selection of the successful bidders pursuant to this process, the appellant filed another writ petition, challenging their selection under the fresh tender. It also questioned the authorities' failure to consider its complaint and subsequent representation, and sought setting aside of the allotment and consideration of its representations in accordance with law.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, prompting the writ appeal challenging that order.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant contended that there was no prescribed criterion permitting the authorities to resort to drawal of lots and that the tender conditions ought to have been followed. It also argued that its earlier writ petition concerned a separate cause of action and that its non-disclosure could not amount to suppression of a material fact.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court noted that the appellant had earlier filed a writ petition seeking extension of the earlier contract, which was actuated by the floating of the subsequent tender in September 2025. The said writ petition was dismissed in October 2025. However, the appellant did not disclose the filing of the said writ petition while instituting the present proceedings challenging the subsequent tender process.
The Court held that the earlier writ petition was a material fact which ought to have been disclosed, as it was directly connected with the fresh tender and the appellant's challenge to the subsequent selection process.
The Court observed that the appellant could not deny having participated in the tender process in accordance with law at all relevant stages. On the merits, the High Court found that the procedure adopted by the authorities could not be termed illegal or arbitrary, particularly since the majority of the qualified bidders had consented to the lottery process.
The Court further noted that the appellant had earlier been awarded the same work by the same Tender Committee through drawal of lots, without raising any objection, and had in fact benefited from that process. In these circumstances, the Court found no ground for interference.
Finding no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the Single Judge's order, the High Court dismissed the writ appeal as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Sri Venkateshwara Association v. The State of A.P. and others
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 703 of 2026
Counsel for the Appellant: S. Sriram, Senior Counsel, representing Javvaji Sarath Chandra
Counsel for the Respondents: Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel, Government Pleader for Medical Health & Family Welfare