A tender notification marred by procedural irregularities must be set aside and reissued lawfully.

The petitioner, an outsourcing agency previously empanelled by the respondent authorities, challenged a tender notification dated 21 May 2026 for outsourcing services in ESI dispensaries in Medchal–Malkajgiri District for 2026–2027.

It alleged that the notification omitted essential tender details—including eligibility criteria, evaluation and selection methods, and contract duration—and stated that tender documents would be issued from 11 May 2026, before the notification date.

The petitioner also relied on an earlier order in W.P. No. 6261 of 2026 setting aside a previous tender notification for irregularities.

The Assistant Government Pleader admitted that certain irregularities had occurred and stated that a fresh notification could be issued if directed.

Whether the tender notification dated 21 May 2026 was procedurally deficient and inconsistent with the requirements of fairness and transparency in public procurement.

Whether the notification should be set aside and the respondents directed to issue a fresh tender, while permitting the petitioner to participate.

The Court applied the general public-procurement principle that the State and its instrumentalities must act fairly, reasonably, and transparently, and must frame and notify tender terms so as to provide equal opportunity and sufficient information to eligible participants.

The petitioner also invoked Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, alleging arbitrariness and interference with the right to participate in the tender process.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

The notification’s stated commencement date for issuing tender documents preceded the notification date, while the petitioner alleged that essential participation and evaluation details were absent.

The respondents’ admission that irregularities had occurred reinforced the concern that the process could not provide a fair, transparent, and legally sustainable selection.

The Court therefore considered corrective action necessary and concluded that the existing notification should not remain in force.

Pending completion of the fresh tender process and selection of a successful bidder, the services then being rendered by the petitioner were permitted to continue; the petitioner was also permitted to participate in the fresh process, subject to the prescribed eligibility criteria.

No order was made as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.