Judgment : Providing facilities of education and health was treated as basic obligation by the foreign rulers, as well as indigenous monarchs. Irrespective of the party in power, claims are made for substantial development of the country, or the state, in several fields, ever since the country became free from foreign rule. Hundreds and thousands of crores of rupees are spent on populistic schemes. However, over a period of time, important social sectors are either neglected or were given secondary importance. Maternity hospital at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, was established during the Nizam's rule, along with great institutions like, Osmania General Hospital, Orthopedic hospital at Erramanzil, which is later named as Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Mental Hospital at Erragadda etc. Decades after independence, the State Government finds itself in a position of not being able to provide the basic facilities in those hospitals, such as to construct toilets. It has chosen the scheme of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) for this purpose. If the Government finds it difficult to provide such a minimum facility, that too in an existing hospital, constructed by the then erstwhile ruler, the parameters for assessment of the development need to be either re-defined or altered. Thecitizens, however, cannot feel proud of such "development". The Government of Andhra Pradesh, in its Municipal Administration Department, issued circular dated 05-12-2005, through which, it evolved a scheme of eradicating "Open Defecation" in towns. This was adopted for construction of toilets in the hospital premises also. The Superintendent of Government Hospital, Sultan Bazar, the 3rd respondent herein, initiated steps for construction of the toilet block in the hospital, and invited quotations from various individuals through letter dated 10-11-2007. In response to the same, the petitioner and the 4th respondent submitted their proposals for construction of the block, under BOT scheme. At one point of time, the Chairman suggested that the tenders be invited, in view of the complications. The proposals submitted by the petitioner and the 4th respondent were placed before the Sub-Committee, comprising of the Superintendent, the R.M.O, Chief Anesthetist and Administrative Officer. At its meeting held on 10-06-2008, the committee examined the proposals and found the one, submitted by the petitioner as better and acceptable. It was also pointed out that the proposal submitted by the 4th respondent is not feasible. At its meeting held on 10-06-2008, the committee examined the proposals and found the one, submitted by the petitioner as better and acceptable. It was also pointed out that the proposal submitted by the 4th respondent is not feasible. However, through her proceedings dated 03-01-2009, the 3rd respondent assigned the contract in favour of the 4th respondent. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner alleges that the action of the 3rd respondent in awarding the contract in favour of the 4th respondent is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the recommendations made by the committee. The 3rd respondent, on the one hand, and the 4th respondent, on the other hand, filed counter-affidavits, denying the allegations of the petitioner. Heard Sri G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health, and Sri N.Cheerala Prasad, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. It is rather unfortunate that the state, which feels proud of its development; is unable to provide the basic facilities, on its own, and is depending upon private individuals, even to construct a toilet in the reputed hospital. Be that as it may, the 3rd respondent invited quotations from various individuals for that purpose. The petitioner and the 4th respondent submitted their quotations together with their plan of action. To ensure objectivity and proper assessment, the 3rd respondent constituted a committee. At its meeting held on10-06-2008, the committee undertook comparative assessment of the plan, submitted by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, and ultimately found that the one, submitted by the petitioner is better and acceptable. However, in the office note dated 05-12-2008, the Chairman has chosen to allot the work to the 4th respondent. It was not even mentioned as to how the assessment made by the committee is defective. Even the counter-affidavit is silent as to the basis for disregarding the assessment made by the committee. Though the ultimate power rested with the 3rd respondent, she was not justified in totally ignoring the recommendations of the committee, without stating any reasons. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the award of contract in favour of the 4th respondent is set aside. It is directed that the 3rd respondent shall act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee, and if she finds it necessary to ignore the recommendations, reasons therefor shall be indicated. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the award of contract in favour of the 4th respondent is set aside. It is directed that the 3rd respondent shall act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee, and if she finds it necessary to ignore the recommendations, reasons therefor shall be indicated. The steps shall be taken by the respondents 1 to 3, to construct toilet block in the hospital, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, through one mechanism or the other. There shall be no order as to costs.