JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, ACJ. Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This Intra-Court Appeal takes exception to the order, dated 22.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.12012 of 2023. 4. The admitted facts between the parties are that the appellant, who is the writ petitioner and respondent No.5 submitted their bids pursuant to the notification inviting tender issued in February, 2023. The stand of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was already running his canteen with the official respondents. The appellant’s technical bid was considered and no deficiency was pointed out. He was shocked to see the proceedings dated 24.03.2023 (Page No.94), wherein the writ petitioner despite being L1 has not been given the tender. Instead, respondent No.5 was granted tender, which was called in question before the Writ Court. 5. The bone of contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that since the appellant was already running the canteen with the official respondents and in the technical bid, no deficiency was pointed out, the appellant should not have been deprived for not producing the Food Safety Licence. However, this Food Safety Licence was “subsequently” produced by the appellant. Thus, Writ Court was not justified in rejecting the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and pointed out that as per the terms and conditions of tender notification, the bidder was required to submit necessary documents such as trade licence, labour licence, Food Safety Licence as well as Sales Tax Certificate. Condition No.19 of the tender conditions was pointed out. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order of aforesaid writ petition has pointed as under: “7. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, it is clear that tender process in nd question was initiated by the 2 respondent through a notification issued in February 2023; terms and conditions of which explicitly required bidders to submit an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with mandatory documents, including a valid Food Safety License, Trade License, Labour License, Sales Tax Certificate, etcetera. Admittedly, th petitioner and the 5 respondent participated in the bidding th process wherein petitioner quoted Rs. 2,00,000/- along with mandatory documents, including a valid Food Safety License, Trade License, Labour License, Sales Tax Certificate, etcetera. Admittedly, th petitioner and the 5 respondent participated in the bidding th process wherein petitioner quoted Rs. 48,000/- while the 5 respondent at Rs. 33,000/- per month. However, upon scrutiny of the documents, petitioner’s bid was found non-compliant due to the absence of a valid Food Safety License. The Tender Committee, comprising Additional Collector, Superintendent GGH, and CSRMO GGH, evaluated the bids on 22.02.2023, disqualified petitioner for non-compliance with mandatory th requirements and negotiated with the 5 respondent to match the th highest bid. This negotiation resulted in the 5 respondent agreeing to pay Rs. 48,000/- per month. Therefore, the impugned th proceedings was issued awarding contract to the 5 respondent and on the same date, petitioner was directed to vacate the premises by 16.04.2023. In the light of the above, it is clear that disqualification of petitioner was based on a clear and objective criterion. Furthermore, petitioner suppressed material facts, including his non-compliance with tender requirements and the th committee’s subsequent negotiation with the 5 respondent. Suppression of such facts undermines the Petitioner’s case and casts doubt on their bona fides.” 7. A plain reading of this paragraph shows that since the appellant did not produce the valid Food Safety Licence along with his bid, the authorities have treated him as disqualified. The learned Single Judge in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order has rightly held that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited. This Court is mainly concerned with the correctness of the decision making process. Otherwise, in the present day economic activities, it is within the province of employer to decide as to whom contract is to be given. So far the decision making process is concerned, we are constrained to hold that no fault can be found in such decision making process. Merely because the appellant was running canteen for the last few years, it does not give him any licence not to produce the valid Food Safety Licence, when it was a mandatory eligibility condition of tender inviting notification. 8. Pertinently, the appellant has not chosen to file Food Safety Licence along with this Writ Appeal also, whereas, said licence of respondent No.5 is filed along with Writ Appeal. 8. Pertinently, the appellant has not chosen to file Food Safety Licence along with this Writ Appeal also, whereas, said licence of respondent No.5 is filed along with Writ Appeal. Thus, we find no difficulty in accepting the finding of the learned Single Judge that along with tender documents essential document establishing eligibility was not filed. Thus, no fault can be found in the decision making process. Apart from that, pursuant to a negotiation, the L2 agreed to pay tender quoted price which was offered by the L1. Thus, the employer has taken care of its institution’s financial health and interest. The learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view. In absence of producing valid Food Safety License, the appellant could not get any enforceable right to participate in the proceedings and succeed. 9. The Writ Appeal sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.