Judgment : The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGENCO) operates dispensaries/project hospitals at its power stations to cater to the health related needs of its employees. Fourteen such dispensaries are stated to be operating presently. The case on hand relates to the dispensaries of the APGENCO at (1) Lower Sileru Hydro Electric Power Station (LSHEPS) at Muthugudem, Khammam District, (2) Upper Sileru Hydro Electric Power Station (USHEPS), Visakhapatnam, (3) Srisailam Left Bank Hydro Power Station (SLBHPS), Mahabubnagar, and (4) Srisailam Right Bank Hydro Power Station (SRBHPS), Kurnool District. Initially, these dispensaries were maintained by the APGENCO itself. However, on 22.04.2008, the APGENCO called for tenders for maintenance of these dispensaries and the successful bidder was Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada. Bhavya Health Services Private Limited, the petitioner company, entered into a tie-up with Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada, with the approval of the APGENCO and was entrusted the work relating to providing medical services at these four dispensaries. The extended contract period relating to these dispensaries expired on 30.09.2011 but the APGENCO informed the petitioner company by its letter dated 17.09.2011 that the existing arrangement for rendering medical services was extended until further orders. However, as regards another such contract with Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, the seventh respondent herein, relating to maintenance of its hospitals at RTS Ramagundam, Kurnool District and NSHES, Nagarjunasagar, Nalgonda District, the APGENCO, under GOO.No.63/CGM(HR)/BS(Ser)/DCS/VSD/ 2011 dated 19.05.2011, extended the expired contract for a period of two years i.e. from 23.05.2011 to 22.05.2013. As the petitioner company was not given the benefit of extension by a further period of two years on par with Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, it filed W.P.No.1515 of 2012 before this Court complaining of discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the APGENCO. Initially, interim orders were granted in this writ petition on 24.01.2012 to continue with the petitioner company’s services until further orders. The writ petition itself was disposed of on 16.07.2012 when it was brought to the notice of this Court that the APGENCO proposed to call for open tenders for allotting the outsourcing work of maintaining the dispensaries in question and as the learned counsel for the petitioner company submitted that in view of this decision of the APGENCO, his client could have no grievance. The order records that when the learned counsel for the petitioner company sought the leave of the Court to permit it to participate in the tender process as and when called for by the APGENCO, the learned standing counsel for the APGENCO stated that the petitioner company’s tender would be considered subject to it satisfying the tender conditions. W.A.No.1126 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner company against the order dated 16.07.2012. Perusal of the final order dated 11.09.2012 passed in this appeal reflects that it was filed by the petitioner company to extend the open tender system to all the dispensaries/hospitals run by the APGENCO. However, the Division Bench found that this question had not been raised before the learned single Judge and accordingly dismissed the writ appeal. The petitioner company however did not let the matter rest there. It filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36825 of 2012 before the Supreme Court challenging the writ appeal order. By interim order dated 14.12.2012, the Supreme Court directed that the parties should maintain status quo with regard to the services being extended by the petitioner company in the four dispensaries in question. However, a final order was passed in the SLP by the Supreme Court on 30.08.2013. This order reads as under: “Heard Mr.Chandan Mishra, learned counsel in support of this petition and Mr.R.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the respondents. Mr. Venkataramani points out that the statement made by the petitioner in the High Court shows that the petitioner was inclined to participate in the tender process. That being so, this I.A.No.2 is allowed. Interim order passed earlier is vacated. There is otherwise no substance in the special leave petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.” While so, even before the disposal of the writ appeal by the Division Bench of this Court, the APGENCO had issued tender specification dated 14.08.2012 for maintenance of six of its dispensaries/project hospitals, including the four dispensaries in question. It is noteworthy that neither the order of the Division Bench of this Court nor the order passed by the Supreme Court referred to or spoke of this tender specification. Aggrieved by the eligibility conditions imposed by the APGENCO in this tender specification, the petitioner company filed W.P.No.13631 of 2013 before this Court and the same is stated to be pending as on date. Aggrieved by the eligibility conditions imposed by the APGENCO in this tender specification, the petitioner company filed W.P.No.13631 of 2013 before this Court and the same is stated to be pending as on date. According to the petitioner company, only Yashoda Hospitals, the seventh respondent, submitted its tender and it is alleged that the tender conditions were designed to favour Yashoda Hospitals. However, that issue does not fall for consideration in this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner company presently falls within a narrow compass. It is its contention that after disposal of SLP by the Supreme Court on 30.08.2013, the APGENCO should have invited fresh tenders but instead of doing so, it issued letter dated 05.09.2013 directing the petitioner company to handover the charge of the four dispensaries in question. According to the petitioner company, this letter was not even served upon it till date but on 06.09.2013 its Managers were served with letters dated 06.09.2013 directing them to handover all the equipment pertaining to the four dispensaries and the officials of the APGENCO high-handedly took over the same and entrusted the dispensaries to Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, on the ground that it was the lowest tenderer in response to the tender specification dated 14.08.2012. This entrustment of the maintenance of the four dispensaries to Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, by taking over the same from the petitioner company, is assailed on various grounds and the prayer of the petitioner company in the writ petition is as follows: “Under the circumstances stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, (I) declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 6 in not issuing fresh tender inviting tenders, in pursuant to disposal of SLP.No.36825/2012 dated 14.12.2012 in respect of maintenance of dispensaries/Project Hospitals at Lower Sileru Hydro Electric Station (LSHES) at Muthugudem, Upper Sileru Hydro Electric Scheme (USHES) at Visakhapatnam District, Srisailam Left Bank Hydro Power Station (SLBHPS) at Mahabubnagar, Srisailam Right Bank Hydro Power Station (SRBHPS), Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and violation of principles of natural justice. (II)to declare that the notification dated 14.8.2012 and declaration of the 7th respondent as L1 and giving effect now, beyond 180 days of opening of tender as invalid and inoperative, (III) to declare that the action of the respondents 1 to 6 in forcibly evicting the petitioner from dispensaries/Project Hospitals at Lower Sileru Hydro Electric Scheme (LSHES) at Muthugudem, Upper Sileru Hydro Electric Station (USHES) at Visakhapatnam District, Srisailam Left Bank Hydro Power Station (SLBHPS) at Mahabubnagar, Srisailam Right Bank Hydro Power Station (SRBHPS), Kurnool District, and entrusting them to the 7th respondent as illegal, (IV)and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” At the time of admission of the writ petition on 13.09.2013, this Court passed the following interim order: “In the light of the various issues which arise for consideration and require further examination, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, who was permitted to continue by virtue of the status quo orders passed by the Supreme Court, shall be permitted to continue to render medical services in respect of subject dispensaries, pending further orders.” WVMP Nos.2963 and 2972 of 2013 are filed by the APGENCO and Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, respectively to vacate the above order.As arguments were advanced by the learned counsel touching upon the merits of the main case, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal with their consent. Though contentious and prolific arguments have been advanced on all issues, this Court finds that the scope of this writ petition is restricted and accordingly eschews from consideration aspects which, though connected, do not fall for resolution. This Court is not concerned with the eligibility conditions prescribed in the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 and the challenge made thereto by the petitioner company. The same is the subject matter of W.P.No.13631 of 2013 which still pending. As to whether the APGENCO sought to favour Yashoda Hospitals thereby would also have to be considered in the said writ petition. The short issue that does fall for consideration in this case is whether the APGENCO could have resorted to acting upon the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 and whether it was required to issue a fresh tender notification pursuant to the disposal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36825 of 2012. The short issue that does fall for consideration in this case is whether the APGENCO could have resorted to acting upon the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 and whether it was required to issue a fresh tender notification pursuant to the disposal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36825 of 2012. It is not in dispute that the tender notification dated 14.08.2012 was an open tender. The bid validity was for a period of 180 days from the date of opening of the tenders. The pre-qualification bids were to be opened on 18.09.2012 and the price bids, on 24.09.2012. The original record was produced by Sri C.Raghu, learned standing counsel for the APGENCO. Perusal thereof reflects that initially the APGENCO intended to call for quotations from identified corporate hospitals for undertaking maintenance its dispensaries. However, pursuant to the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5235 of 2012, this proposal seems to have been dropped. The challenge in the said writ petition was to the action of the APGENCO in trying to allot contracts relating to maintenance of its dispensaries by nomination without issuing a public tender notification. A learned Judge of this Court found that the APGENCO was bound by its own instructions, contained in GOO No.98/JS(Per)/2010 dated 25.05.2010 and GOO No.351/JS(Per)/2010 dated 25.09.2010, to resort to tendering through e-procurement for all works valued above Rs. 5 lakhs. As the APGENCO stated before the learned Judge that for works worth more than Rs. 5 lakhs, notifications would be issued calling for tenders, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the APGENCO to follow the procedure contemplated in GOO No.351 dated 25.09.2010. The note file reflects that the APGENCO, taking into consideration the above order, decided to go in for an open tender through e-procurement. Admittedly, neither the petitioner company nor its tie-up partner, Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada, submitted their tenders pursuant to the tender specification dated 14.08.2012. This was obviously because neither of them fulfilled the eligibility conditions stipulated therein which led to the filing of a separate writ petition challenging the said tender specification. The record further reflects that on 15.09.2012, after closing of the bid submissions, the APGENCO found that only one tender had been received – that of Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad. This was obviously because neither of them fulfilled the eligibility conditions stipulated therein which led to the filing of a separate writ petition challenging the said tender specification. The record further reflects that on 15.09.2012, after closing of the bid submissions, the APGENCO found that only one tender had been received – that of Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad. It appears that one Praveen Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada, filed W.P.No.28693 of 2012 assailing the eligibility conditions specified in the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 requiring the bidder to have a 400 bed hospital. By interim order dated 14.09.2012, this Court directed the APGENCO to permit Praveen Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada, to file its tender and to process the same along with other tenders. Referring to this order, the Joint Managing Director of the APGENCO ordered that in view of the poor response, time may be extended by ten days. However, even after expiry of this ten day period, Praveen Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada, failed to submit its tender. Thereupon, the APGENCO decided to process the bid in accordance with the programme schedule rather than granting further extension as there were sufficient hospitals having 400 beds operating in the State Headquarters. The pre-qualification bid was accordingly opened on 26.09.2012 and the sole tender of Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, was verified. Thereafter, as it fulfilled the eligibility criteria, its price bid was opened on 05.12.2012. The record also reflects that negotiations took place between the APGENCO and Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, as to various terms and conditions. W.P.No.28693 of 2012 filed by Praveen Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada, was dismissed on 15.11.2012, when it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner therein had not chosen to submit its tender pursuant to the interim order. When the matter was put up for finalization of the bid submitted by Yashoda Hospitals, after due negotiations, the Joint Managing Director of the APGENCO endorsed as follows: “Since only one bid was received, what is the Purchase Manual condition?” Stating that there was urgent need for finalization of the bid as the term of the existing agency, the petitioner company herein, had already expired and there were number of complaints during the extended period, the APGENCO again put up the file. Taking note of the opinion expressed by the law attaché to the effect that despite repeated floating of tenders, only a single tender had been received and that there would be no legal objection to consider the same, the Joint Managing Director of the APGENCO directed the authorities concerned to negotiate and thereafter circulate. While these negotiations were in progress, the interim order of status quo was passed by the Supreme Court. As this order pertained to four out of the six notified dispensaries, the APGENCO decided to award the work relating to the other two dispensaries, viz., RTPP, Kallamalla, Kadapa and Donkarayi Hydro Electric Power Station, Donkarayi, East Godavari District to Yashoda Hospitals. The consent of Yashoda Hospitals was directed to be sought in this regard and letter dated 24.01.2013 was addressed by the Chief General Manager (HR) of the APGENCO to Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, informing it of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court with regard to maintaining status quo as to the services being extended by Bhavya Health Services Private Limited, Vijayawada, in the four dispensaries at LSHES, USHES, SLBHPS and SRBHPS. Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, was requested to indicate whether it was agreeable to maintain the APGENCO dispensaries at RTTP, YSR District and Donkarayi Canal Hydro Electric Power Station, East Godavari District, which were outside the purview of the Supreme Court direction. If it was agreeable, Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, was asked to submit an acceptance letter in this regard for taking necessary action in the matter. In response, Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, addressed letter dated 28.01.2013 to the Chief General Manager (HR) of the APGENCO stating that it was prepared to take up the responsibility of maintaining the two dispensaries/hospitals at RTPP and also at Donkarayi on the stipulated terms. It is significant to note that under the letter dated 24.01.2013, the APGENCO did not call upon Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, to extend the bid validity in so far as the other four dispensaries were concerned, which were the subject matter of the case before the Supreme Curt. However, Volume-3 of the record pertaining to the ‘Maintenance of hospitals at RTPP and Donkarayi’ contains an undated letter signed by the authorized signatory of Yashoda Hospitals on 25.01.2013, which reads as under: “This has reference to the letter dated 24.01.2013. However, Volume-3 of the record pertaining to the ‘Maintenance of hospitals at RTPP and Donkarayi’ contains an undated letter signed by the authorized signatory of Yashoda Hospitals on 25.01.2013, which reads as under: “This has reference to the letter dated 24.01.2013. Since the matter is pending in the Honourable Courts, we are willing to extend validity of our bid/offer beyond 180 days till the matter decided by the Honourable Courts.” This letter was addressed to the Chief General Manager (HR) of the APGENCO and the stamp affixed thereon reveals that it was received on 28.01.2013. The signatory to this letter is however the same person who signed the other letter dated 28.01.2013 whereby Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, accepted responsibility for maintaining the other two dispensaries of the APGENCO at RTPP and Donkarayi. The APGENCO entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, thereafter with regard to the maintenance of these two dispensaries. After the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court on 30.08.2013, the APGENCO claims to have addressed letter dated 05.09.2013 to the petitioner company referring to the dismissal of the SLP and informing it that its services were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner company was requested thereunder to handover charge of the four dispensaries and all the properties of the APGENCO to the concerned operating officer. The petitioner company denies receipt of this letter. However, operations at these four dispensaries were taken over by the officials of the APGENCO on 06.09.2013 and were entrusted to Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, immediately. Despite this Court granting an interim order in favour of the petitioner company on 13.09.2013, it is its complaint that the APGENCO did not choose to honour and implement it. Presently, Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, is operating the four dispensaries in question. The APGENCO is bound to follow the Purchase Management System Manual which was approved by it under GOO No.467/CM(Adm.)/2003 dated 28.10.2003. This manual details the procedure to be followed by the APGENCO in the context of purchasing materials and services. The APGENCO therefore had to act in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this manual while finalizing the bid in favour of Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, pursuant to the tender specification dated 14.08.2012. Needless to affirm, the State and its instrumentalities are bound by their own instructions [SWARAN SINGH CHAND Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ( (2009) 13 SCC 758 ), NARINDER CHAND HEM RAJ Vs. Needless to affirm, the State and its instrumentalities are bound by their own instructions [SWARAN SINGH CHAND Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ( (2009) 13 SCC 758 ), NARINDER CHAND HEM RAJ Vs. LT. GOVERNOR, ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY, HIMACHAL PRADESH ( (1971) 2 SCC 747 ) and GENERAL MANAGER, MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. DEVRAJ URS ( (1976) 2 SCC 862 )]. The tender modes prescribed under Section 8.1.2 of the Purchase Manual include ‘Open Tender (Notice Inviting Tenders-NIT)’. Section 8.3.8 deals with validity of offers and states to the effect that a realistic validity of the offer should be specified in tender enquiry. Normally, a period of 120 days validity shall be specified and in the case of complex equipment or turn-key projects, validity period could be asked between 120-180 days (cases of two-part bidding). Section 8.3.9 deals with the extension of the validity period and sub-section (a) thereof states as under: “Every effort shall be made to place the order on vendors before expiry of validity period of offers. In case due to certain unavoidable circumstances/extraordinary circumstances, order could not be finalized, bidder shall be requested well in time for suitable extension of validity period of their offers.” Some of the other sections in this Purchase Manual which are relevant for the purpose of this case may also be referred to. Open tenders are dealt with under Section 9.2. Section 9.2.5 deals with qualifying requirements and reads as under: “9.2.5. Qualifying Requirements (QR): In case of open tender for certain high value and very critical equipment/spares, pre-qualification need to be formulated so as to avoid frivolous bidders and to ensure that only reliable parties are invited to quote. Tender documents against NIT are issued only to those parties who prima facie meet those qualifying requirements. In such cases bid evaluation will take into consideration that the bidders have fulfilled the qualifying requirements in the NIT. a) Qualifying requirements shall be formulated taking into consideration the estimated cost of materials, technical importance and critically, time frame for implementation and quality assurance plan. Basic objective of qualifying requirement is to appraise the financial, technical, production capacities past performance and management capabilities of prospective bidders. b) While formulating the qualifying requirements it has, however, to be ensured that they do not become too stringent resulting in poor response. They should not be formulated keeping in view a model supplier. Basic objective of qualifying requirement is to appraise the financial, technical, production capacities past performance and management capabilities of prospective bidders. b) While formulating the qualifying requirements it has, however, to be ensured that they do not become too stringent resulting in poor response. They should not be formulated keeping in view a model supplier. These have to be formulated in such a manner that a minimum of 6-8 good suppliers meets them. The general guiding factor shall be – production capacity to meet tentative requirement, in-house testing/inspection facilities in line with requirements of Quality Assurance Plan, financial resourcefulness (requirement of financial statements viz. balance sheet and profit & loss accounts for last 2-3 years, Income Tax Clearance Certificate, solvency certificate from bankers etc) to execute the order, past experience and performance of supplies of same or similar type of materials, Sales Tax Registration Certificate etc to ensure that the prospective bidders can deliver the goods as per requirements. c) In view of techno-commercial aspect, qualifying requirements shall be finalized by a committee, consisting of representative each from Materials, Finance and Requisitioning Departments (at appropriate level). Qualifying requirements so formulated by the committee shall be approved by Chief Engineer/Competent authority as per the delegation of powers. d) Qualifying requirements once stipulated in NIT shall not be relaxed or altered under any circumstances. In case of poor response against specified qualifying requirements. QR Committee shall review the same and revise for the purpose of re-tendering.” Section 9.2.10 deals with extension of the bid opening date and states that though every effort needs to be made to open the bids on the bid opening date the bid opening date may be extended due to unavoidable reasons, including poor response. One of the other modes of tender detailed in Section 8.1.2 is that by ‘Limited Tender’. Section 9.3 deals with such tenders and under Section 9.3.5, it is provided that offers from at least three vendors are mandatory to process the purchase. Section 9.3.6 stipulates that in case of insufficient response, further action should be taken as per Section 8.3.19. Section 8.3.19 reads as under: “8.3.19. Extension of schedule bid opening date: Limited Tender In case number of in time offers on scheduled bid opening date is insufficient (less than 3) offers shall not normally be opened and put up to competent authority for approval of extension of bid due date. Section 8.3.19 reads as under: “8.3.19. Extension of schedule bid opening date: Limited Tender In case number of in time offers on scheduled bid opening date is insufficient (less than 3) offers shall not normally be opened and put up to competent authority for approval of extension of bid due date. However before processing any extension, user department must be consulted for non-stock items and Stores Section for stock items. Another two weeks time shall be given to vendors to respond to tender enquiry. (a) Intimation regarding extension and new bid opening date shall be given to all bidders including those who have already furnished their offers. While extending the date, limited tender enquiries can also be sent to certain additional suppliers, with the approval of competent authority, so as to ensure adequate response on extended bid-opening date. (b) However, if the nature of purchase requisition is emergent and user department is in urgent need of materials, after recording reasons and with approval of competent authority less than three off (s) can also be opened. Open Tender As regards extension of bid opening date of open tender; such notification in the form of Corrigendum has to be advertised in the newspapers in the same manner as the case of Notice Inviting Tenders.” It is therefore manifest that even in the case of limited tenders it is not open to the APGENCO to straightaway decide to act upon a single eligible bid. It is only if the purchase requisition is emergent and on the competent authority’s approval that less than three offers can be opened. In so far as open tenders are concerned, Section 9.2.5 makes it clear that in case of poor response, the Qualifying Requirements Committee would be required to review such requirements and revise the same for the purpose of re-tendering. In the event, the APGENCO could not garner sufficient response from the bidders and was left with only one single bidder, its Purchase Manual required it to go in for a fresh process of tender as per Section 9.2.5. Section 10.10 (c) of the Purchase Manual is crucial. It reads as under: “c) In case of single responsive offer (Technically acceptable offer), re-tendering shall normally be resorted to. Section 10.10 (c) of the Purchase Manual is crucial. It reads as under: “c) In case of single responsive offer (Technically acceptable offer), re-tendering shall normally be resorted to. However, due to exceptional circumstances or urgency of requirement (To be certified by user department) single offer shall be accepted/negotiated but reasons for such decision must be recorded, concurred by Finance and approved by competent authority (delegation of power for single tender shall be applicable and not the limited tender.” This section only pertains to placing of orders for works of the value of upto Rs. 1 lakh. Even in such cases, re-tendering is normal in the event there is only one single responsive tender. However, if exceptional circumstances or urgency mandates, the APGENCO is empowered to accept the single tender but reasons for such a decision need to be recorded and the concurrence of the finance department as well as the competent authority would have to be obtained. This being the situation with a work whose value is less than Rs. 1 lakh, the APGENCO could not have resorted to blind acceptance of the one and only tender in the present case when the value is estimated to run into several crores. The record does not reflect any deliberations on this aspect. However, it is not open to the APGENCO to brush aside the binding operating procedures prescribed under the above Purchase Manual. This Court must also take into account the sequence of events as they unfolded leading upto the present state of affairs. The initial cause for the petitioner company to approach this Court was the extension of the expired contract of Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, by a further period of two years in the context of some other dispensaries/hospitals of the APGENCO. The petitioner company’s contract had also expired, as was the case with Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, but the extension given to it was until further orders and not for a stipulated term. The petitioner company therefore prayed for similar relief in W.P.No.1515 of 2012. The said writ petition was dismissed on 16.07.2012 owing to the stand put forth by the APGENCO that outsourcing of the maintenance of the four dispensaries with which the petitioner company was concerned would be put to open tender. The petitioner company therefore prayed for similar relief in W.P.No.1515 of 2012. The said writ petition was dismissed on 16.07.2012 owing to the stand put forth by the APGENCO that outsourcing of the maintenance of the four dispensaries with which the petitioner company was concerned would be put to open tender. The foundation for the petitioner company’s appeal against this order was that this open tender system was proposed to be adopted by the APGENCO only for the four dispensaries in question and not the other dispensaries run by it. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed on 11.09.2012 on the ground that the petitioner company had not raised this question before the learned single Judge. The dismissal order however demonstrates that it was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the APGENCO had already come out with the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 and had started acting upon it. The petitioner company thereafter approached the Supreme Court and the interim order dated 14.12.2012 was passed directing maintenance of status quo as regards the services being extended by the petitioner company in the four dispensaries in question. This interim order was an ex parte order. However, the dismissal order dated 30.08.2013 was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the APGENCO. In fact, the dismissal of the SLP was inspired by the submission made by the said counsel. The order reads to the effect that the learned counsel for the APGENCO pointed out the statement made by the petitioner company before this Court to the effect that it was inclined to participate in the tender process. Thereupon, the Supreme Court recorded as follows: “ … …That being so, this I.A.No.2 is allowed. Interim order passed earlier is vacated. There is otherwise no substance in the special leave petition. Thereupon, the Supreme Court recorded as follows: “ … …That being so, this I.A.No.2 is allowed. Interim order passed earlier is vacated. There is otherwise no substance in the special leave petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.” There is no indication in the order that the learned counsel for the APGENCO ever brought it to the notice of the Supreme Court that tender specification dated 14.08.2012 had already been issued by the APGENCO; that the petitioner company was not even eligible to apply in response thereto; that the petitioner company had already challenged the eligibility conditions prescribed therein by way of a writ petition which was pending before this Court; and that the APGENCO had practically decided to award the contract to the sole eligible tenderer Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, by that date. On the other hand, the impression given to the Supreme Court was that the petitioner company would be at liberty to participate in a tender process which was yet to be initiated. This impression was wholly unfounded, given the obtaining facts. This Court therefore finds that the present case is a fit one to apply the maxim ‘Suppressio Veri Suggestio Falsi’. Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edn.) defines ‘Suggestio Falsi’ as under: “Suggestion or representation of that which is false; false representation. To recite in a deed that a will was duly executed, when it was not, is suggestio falsi; and to conceal from the heir that the will was not duly executed is suppressio veri.” Suppression envisages a deliberate or conscious omission to state a fact with the intention of deriving wrongful gain [COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. TIN PLATE CO. OF INDIA LTD. ( (1997) 10 SCC 538 )]. In the present case, the APGENCO filed an application before the Supreme Court to vacate the status quo order passed in the SLP. Thereupon, the SLP itself came to be dismissed on 30.08.2013. The APGENCO projected a false state of affairs before the Supreme Court suppressing the events that had taken place in the meanwhile. Thereby, it not only got the interim order of status quo vacated but secured the dismissal of the SLP. The APGENCO was therefore guilty of committing ‘Suppressio Veri Suggestio Falsi’. The APGENCO projected a false state of affairs before the Supreme Court suppressing the events that had taken place in the meanwhile. Thereby, it not only got the interim order of status quo vacated but secured the dismissal of the SLP. The APGENCO was therefore guilty of committing ‘Suppressio Veri Suggestio Falsi’. Though Sri C.Raghu, learned standing counsel, and Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, would contend that the petitioner company was ineligible to apply pursuant to the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 and would therefore have no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition, this Court is not persuaded to agree. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company had a tie-up with Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada, and was awarded the maintenance work relating to the four dispensaries in question for a period of one year initially i.e. from 01.10.2008 to 30.09.2009. The said contract was extended for a further period of two years under letter dated 03.11.2009 and the extended period expired on 30.09.2011. However, the APGENCO under its letter dated 17.09.2011 extended the contract of the petitioner company until further orders. While so, the petitioner company raised the issue of extending its contract for a stipulated term on par with Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, vide W.P.No.1515 of 2012. This led to the litigation before the Supreme Court and by virtue of the status quo order granted therein, the petitioner company continued to maintain the subject dispensaries. It is a different matter that, in the meanwhile, the APGENCO issued tender specification dated 14.08.2012. The petitioner company stood excluded owing to the eligibility conditions prescribed therein and did not therefore submit its tender in response thereto. The petitioner company’s challenge to the said eligibility conditions is yet to be resolved in the pending W.P.No.13631 of 2013. Ignoring these facts, the APGENCO projected before the Supreme Court as if the petitioner company would be in a position to participate in the tender process without even disclosing the fact that the tender process, which had already been initiated foreclosed any participation of the petitioner company and that it had almost crystallized in the award of the contract to the sole bidder, Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad. Having given such an impression to the Supreme Court, it is not open to the APGENCO to seek to retract therefrom and continue to process the bid of the sole eligible bidder Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, pursuant to the tender specification dated 14.08.2012. The writ petition is therefore held to be maintainable. Notably, the bid validity period prescribed in the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 expired in March, 2013. Though a letter is found in the record in proof of Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, having extended the validity of its bid, this Court finds that there was no effort on the part of the APGENCO, in terms of Section 8.3.9 of the Purchase Manual, requesting Yashoda Hospitals for extension of the validity period of its offer. On the other hand, the letter dated 24.01.2013 addressed by the APGENCO was not for this purpose but for the purpose of ascertaining the willingness of Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, to undertake the maintenance work relating to the other two dispensaries which were not covered by the Supreme Court order. A response in this regard was given by Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, under its letter dated 28.01.2013, whereby the bid validity was unilaterally extended by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Relevant to note, this extension was not even for a particular period and baldly states that Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, was willing to extend the validity of its bid offer beyond 180 days. The letter bearing the authorized signatory’s signature with the date 25.01.2013 therefore does not commend credibility. The procedure prescribed in Section 8.3.9 of the Purchase Manual was not adhered to and, on the other hand, the aforestated facts reflect that this letter seems to have been obtained only as an afterthought. Even if it is to be accepted that this extension of the bid validity was proper and correct, this Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the APGENCO in securing the dismissal of the SLP by pretending that the petitioner company could participate in the tender process, by completely suppressing the actual facts, was a clear abuse of process. Having committed itself to this stand, it is not open to the APGENCO to now turn around and state that the tender process had already culminated in excluding the petitioner company from the zone of consideration and that it was at liberty to award the subject work to the sole bidder, Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad. Having committed itself to this stand, it is not open to the APGENCO to now turn around and state that the tender process had already culminated in excluding the petitioner company from the zone of consideration and that it was at liberty to award the subject work to the sole bidder, Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad. Acceptance of this bid, when there was only one eligible bidder, is also in violation of the binding instructions in the APGENCO’s Purchase Manual. This Court is therefore constrained to invalidate the same. Though Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel, urged various contentions to justify his client being awarded the work, the reason for interference in this writ petition, as set out supra, is owing to the actions of the APGENCO and not owing to any perceived shortcoming in Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad. That being so, the comparative merit of Yashoda Hospitals is of no consequence and this Court is not inclined to accept that merely because Yashoda Hospitals has already started discharging its functions pursuant to the award of the contract in its favour, this Court should stay its hand. The learned senior counsel relied on precedential law in support of his contentions: The observations of the Supreme Court in para 35 of RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY Vs. THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1628) are pressed into service. Having found that the acceptance of the tender in that case was invalid, the Supreme Court however stated that it would not upset that decision and void the contract, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. These observations must necessarily be limited to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in that case and cannot have general application. Reference was also made to the Constitution Bench judgment in CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY (PROPRIETARY) LTD. Vs. STATE OF W.B. (AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 1044(1)) in the context of exercise of powers by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A right that can be enforced under Article 226, per the Supreme Court, should ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself. That being the case presently, this Court finds that this judgment does not further the case of the respondents. Reference was made to ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION PLATES Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( (2005) 1 SCC 679 ), HANS ENTERPRISES Vs. That being the case presently, this Court finds that this judgment does not further the case of the respondents. Reference was made to ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION PLATES Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( (2005) 1 SCC 679 ), HANS ENTERPRISES Vs. THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ( 2006 (86) DRJ 623 ), and NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. ANSALDO CALDAIE BOILERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( (2012) 4 SCC 471 ) in the context of the challenge made to the tender conditions. However, as this Court is not concerned with the validity of the eligibility conditions prescribed in the tender specification dated 14.08.2012, these judgments are wholly irrelevant. In AIR INDIA LIMITED Vs. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED ( (2000) 2 SCC 617 ), the Supreme Court observed to the following effect. The award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction and the considerations which are paramount for arriving at a commercial decision would be commercial considerations. However, the State and its instrumentalities would be bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though the decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by malafides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State and its instrumentalities have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. This being the standard, the APGENCO clearly fell short of it in the present case not only in the context of processing the single bid received pursuant to the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 in utter violation of its own prescribed procedures in the Purchase Manual but also in terms of the manner in which it projected the case before the Supreme Court. In so far as the termination of the petitioner company’s contract is concerned, there is a dispute as to the service of the notice dated 05.09.2013, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition. However, the extension granted in favour of the petitioner company under the APGENCO’s letter dated 17.09.2011 was only until further orders. The protection afforded by the status quo order of the Supreme Court ceased to exist from 30.08.2013. The petitioner company also failed to inform the Supreme Court of the facts and silently suffered the order dated 30.08.2013. It cannot therefore complain of illegal termination of its extended expired contract at this stage. The protection afforded by the status quo order of the Supreme Court ceased to exist from 30.08.2013. The petitioner company also failed to inform the Supreme Court of the facts and silently suffered the order dated 30.08.2013. It cannot therefore complain of illegal termination of its extended expired contract at this stage. The third prayer in the writ petition is therefore rejected. This Court accordingly holds that the action of the APGENCO in not issuing a fresh tender notification after the dismissal of SLP No.36825 of 2012 on 30.08.3013 is unlawful. Its further action in processing the bid of the sole tenderer, Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, pursuant to the tender specification dated 14.08.2012 is equally unlawful, being in violation of the procedures prescribed in the APGENCO’s Purchase Manual. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed to the extent of invalidating these actions. There shall be a consequential direction to the APGENCO to put the subject work relating to the maintenance of the four dispensaries in question to a fresh tender process in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Purchase Manual. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending the same, it shall be open to the APGENCO to make temporary arrangements for the operation and maintenance of the subject dispensaries. There shall be no order as to costs.