ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit is that he participated in the e-procurement Tender Notification dated 25.05.2022. After submitting its bid and receiving no communication, the petitioner discovered on the e-procurement portal on 20.06.2022 that it had been disqualified for being a "Block listed agency" citing a Government Memo from the Superintendent of MGM Hospital, Warangal, dated 02.04.2022. The petitioner had already submitted a letter to Respondent No. 1 on 21.06.2022, clarifying that the blacklisting direction had been suspended by this Court vide Order dated 08.04.2022 initially and later set aside entirely on 11.04.2023. Challenging this disqualification, the petitioner filed WP No. 35487 of 2022. During these proceedings, it was orally confirmed by the government's counsel that no Letter of Award had been issued to any bidder, despite Respondent No. 4 having filed its own writ petition, WP No. 38219 of 2022, claiming it had been awarded the contract on 08.09.2022 and 12.09.2022. 1.1 The petitioner’s writ petition, W.P.No.35487 of 2022 was dismissed on 28.02.2023, and the W.P.No.38219 of 2022 filed by respondent No.4 was allowed. The petitioner filed an appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide Order dated 23.03.2023 in WA Nos. 313 and 361 of 2023, set aside the petitioner's disqualification and remanded the matter back to the tender evaluation committee, by directing the committee to open and consider the petitioner's price bid against that of Respondent No. 4 and make a fresh decision within 30 days. In compliance, the petitioner submitted a letter to Respondent No. 1 on 19.04.2023. Respondent No. 1, in its letter dated 17.05.2023, replied that it would only act upon receipt of the original signed copy of the order. The petitioner provided the certified copy through another letter dated 09.06.2023, to which Respondent No. 1 responded on 16.06.2023, acknowledging receipt on 12.06.2023 and committing to act within 30 days from that later date. 1.2 The petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 1 issued a final "speaking order" on 10.07.2023 disqualifying him on entirely new technical grounds that were not raised during the initial evaluation. 1.2 The petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 1 issued a final "speaking order" on 10.07.2023 disqualifying him on entirely new technical grounds that were not raised during the initial evaluation. It is contended that the impugned Speaking Order alleged that the bid, submitted in the name of "M/s Agile Security Force Pvt Ltd," contained documents from three different firm names, including "M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited" and "M/s. Agile Security Force," and cited issues with the Earnest Money Deposit, registration, PAN card, income tax returns, annual turnover, and a solvency certificate not in Indian rupees. It also claimed a pest control license lacked an issue date and validity period; and these discrepancies demonstrated a failure to meet the tender's document requirements under Section IV, 4.2.3 (a) to (n). 1.3The petitioner contends that "M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited" and "M/s. Agile Security Force Pvt Ltd" are minor stylistic variations referring to the same single legal entity, a company originally established as a proprietorship in 1994 and incorporated in 1995. It contends the solvency certificate was, in fact, in Indian rupees and that the pest control license, renewed in 2019, is valid for five years until 2024 as per the Insecticides Rules, 1971. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 4 is itself technically non-compliant, failing to satisfy turnover criteria and having inconsistent experience documents, yet these lapses were ignored by the Respondent No. 1. It is contended that this entire sequence, from the initial blacklisting to the final disqualification on fresh technicalities, is a concerted effort to sideline a qualified bidder in violation of principles of natural justice and its constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. 2. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1-Superintendent of the Government General & Chest Hospital, Hyderabad contending that the technical bid was opened for evaluation on 21.06.2022 and not on 20.06.2022 as alleged by the petitioner, asserting that "there is no technical bid evaluation sheet dated 20.06.2022." On that date, the Technical Evaluation Committee scrutinized the bids and disqualified the petitioner. The respondent acknowledges that the petitioner sent a letter dated 21.06.2022 regarding the suspension of its blacklisting, but contends this letter was received offline only on 28.06.2022, a full week after the technical evaluation had been completed. The respondent emphasizes that this was a "purely online tender" as per tender conditions Nos. The respondent acknowledges that the petitioner sent a letter dated 21.06.2022 regarding the suspension of its blacklisting, but contends this letter was received offline only on 28.06.2022, a full week after the technical evaluation had been completed. The respondent emphasizes that this was a "purely online tender" as per tender conditions Nos. 1.1.3, 1.1.11, and 1.1.12, which stipulate no provision for manual correspondence or hard copies, thus rendering the belated physical letter irrelevant to the online evaluation process. 2.1 It is contended that the respondent No.1 complied with the Order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and passed a Speaking order on 10.07.2023 and due to the failure of the petitioner to meet the technical conditions, he was disqualified on the original technical grounds. It is contended that the petitioner submitted documents in the names of three distinct firms—"M/s Agile Security Force Pvt. Ltd," "M/s Agile Security Force," and "M/s Agile Security Force Private Limited"—while the bid was submitted only in the name of the first entity. The speaking order listed nine specific documents, including the Earnest Money Deposit, Organization Registration Certificate, and PAN Card, that were filed under the other two firm names, creating a fatal inconsistency. The respondent further refutes the petitioner's claim of a valid pest control license, asserting the uploaded document lacked a date of issue and validity period. It is contended that the solvency certificate, while the tender condition required figures in Indian rupees, the petitioner's document was "in millions," which was against tender condition No. 9.3.4. 2.2 It is contended that the Technical Committee thoroughly scrutinized all bids and found Respondent No. 4 to have fulfilled all technical and financial conditions, and that the respondent "did not show any favour to any bidder." It is contended that the petitioner, who was the contractor from 2017 until 10.03.2023, was aware of its disqualification from the portal on 20.06.2022 but wilfully he kept quiet from 20.06.2022 to 12.09.2022 and only filed writ petition on 13.09.2022, after the work order had been issued to Respondent No. 4 on 08.09.2022. Furthermore, the petitioner only challenged about black listing... but not the above disqualifications, thereby waiving its right to challenge these other grounds later. 3 . Furthermore, the petitioner only challenged about black listing... but not the above disqualifications, thereby waiving its right to challenge these other grounds later. 3 . A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 essentially contending that out of a total of six bidders, five, including the petitioner, were disqualified at the technical evaluation stage, leaving Respondent No. 4 as the sole qualified bidder whose financial bid was then legitimately opened and accepted. It is contended that the tender process is totally online, and the specific condition 1.1.3, which states "No hard copies are accepted," and 1.1.11 and 1.1.12, which caution that bids devoid of proper documents are liable for rejection and that there is "no further chance for rectifying the defects." It is contended that the petitioner's letter dated 21.06.2022 was submitted offline only on 28.06.2022, a seven-day delay after the technical bid was opened on 21.06.2022. It is contended that the petitioner, having been disqualified in tenders from other major hospitals like M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, and Gandhi Hospital, was "well aware" of the need to upload the Court Order suspending the blacklisting but the petitioner chose not to upload, thereby justifying its disqualification at the time of evaluation. 3.1 It is contended that the petitioner's bid was submitted in the name of "Agile Security Force Pvt Ltd" but critical documents—including the Earnest Money Deposit, Organization Registration Certificate, PAN Card, and ESI registration—were uploaded for "Agile Security Force Private Limited" and "Agile Security Force." It is contended that the petitioner's pest control license, lacked a date of issue and validity period, and challenges the solvency certificate for being in "millions" instead of Indian rupees, a violation of tender condition 9.3.4, and therefore there is no illegality in the awarding of tender to respondent No.4, and there is no merit in the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Respondent No. 1 has acted with a wilful ignorance of both the law and its own Tender Notification, and the authority failed to recognize that "M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited" and "M/s. Agile Security Force Pvt Ltd" are one and the same legal entity—a company incorporated on 05.04.1995. It is contended that Respondent No. 1 disqualified the petitioner unilaterally without issuing any prior notice or seeking any clarification regarding the nomenclature variation in the submitted documents. It is contended that Respondent No. 1 disqualified the petitioner unilaterally without issuing any prior notice or seeking any clarification regarding the nomenclature variation in the submitted documents. It is contended that despite the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench Order dated 23.03.2023 in W.A. Nos. 313 and 361 of 2023, specifically directing Respondent No. 1 to consider the price bid of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 1 engaged in dilatory tactics, first demanding a certified copy and then, upon receipt, inventing new grounds for disqualification. It is contended that so-called "technical" grounds for disqualification are unreasonable and the specific discrepancies regarding document names were absent in the initial evaluation sheet uploaded on 20.06.2022 and were never pleaded in the previous rounds of litigation, and their sudden emergence after the remand order passed by this Court would clearly show that the respondent No.1 intended to disqualify the petitioner on any pretext. It is also contended that the very same set of documents and approvals, now questioned by Respondent No. 1, have been the basis for the petitioner successfully securing the same IHFMS contract for this very hospital in the past, specifically in 2017, and for being awarded numerous other government tenders. The respondent's failure to acknowledge this established history of acceptance is perverse and points to a selective and biased application of tender conditions. It is contended that the petitioner's bid was fully compliant with all obligations under the Tender Notification, with no misrepresentation of facts, and the petitioner is renowned for its service quality, consistently receiving performance marks over 95% from its clients in the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, and therefore seeks to quash the impugned Speaking Order dated 10.07.2023 and to direct Respondent No. 1 to evaluate the petitioner's bid on its merits. 4.1 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rashmi Metaliks Limited vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority , [ (2013) 10 SCC 95 ] , wherein it was held that disqualification of the company on the ground of failure to submit its latest income tax return along with bid/offer is not a sufficient reason for disregarding its bid/offer. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 would contend that the entire tender process was conducted as a purely online proceeding, governed by explicit and non-negotiable conditions. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 would contend that the entire tender process was conducted as a purely online proceeding, governed by explicit and non-negotiable conditions. The counsel would heavily rely on tender conditions 1.1.3, 1.1.11, and 1.1.12, which unequivocally state that "no hard copies are accepted," and that bids "devoid of proper documents are liable to be rejected," and that there is "no further chance for rectifying defects." Within this mandatory online framework, the petitioner's subsequent attempt to introduce a clarificatory letter dated 21.06.2022 via offline mode on 28.06.2022 was legally irrelevant, as the technical evaluation had already been concluded on 21.06.2022. 5.1 It is contended that the petitioner's bid was fundamentally flawed because it submitted documents in the names of three distinct entities: "M/s Agile Security Force Pvt. Ltd," "M/s Agile Security Force," and "M/s Agile Security Force Private Limited." The counsel would list the nine specific documents—including the Earnest Money Deposit, PAN Card, and ESI Registration—that were filed under names different from the bidding entity, creating fatal inconsistencies that mandated disqualification under tender condition Section IV, 4.2.3 (a) to (n).Furthermore, the petitioner's Pest Control License was invalid as it lacked a date of issue and validity period, and that the Solvency Certificate was non-compliant because it was expressed in "millions" instead of Indian Rupees, contrary to specific tender condition 9.3.4. 5.2 It is contended that the technical bid was opened on 21.06.2022 and not on 20.06.2022, and that therefore, the very evaluation sheet the petitioner initially challenged was non-existent. The counsel would also allege that the petitioner engaged in strategic delay, knowing of its disqualification from 20.06.2022 but waiting to file its writ petition until 13.09.2022, only after the work order was issued to Respondent No. 4 on 08.09.2022. 5.3 It is contended that the petitioner’s bid was re-verified subsequent to the Order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23.03.2023, and the re-verification confirmed the original, valid technical disqualifications, and therefore the decision of the tender committee was based solely on the objective failure of the petitioner's bid to meet the mandatory tender requirements, and there is no favoritism shown to any bidder, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 contends that the petitioner submitted documents from multiple, distinct legal entities to support a bid submitted in a single name; that "M/s. Agile Security Force Pvt Ltd," "M/s. Agile Security Force Private Limited," and "M/s. Agile Security Force" are not nomenclatural variations but separate entities, a fact conclusively proven by the different Establishment Code Numbers allotted by the EPF authorities; that Establishment ID APHYD/0073877/000 for "Agile Security Force Pvt Ltd" and APHYD0026161000 for "Agile Security Force Private Limited" as irrefutable evidence that the petitioner interchangeably used documents of different firms, a practice that vitiates the very foundation of a fair tender process. It is contended that the petitioner relied on documents pertaining to completely unrelated entities, such as the "Agile Security Force Training Institute" and "M/s Agile Security Services Pvt Ltd," to meet the tender requirements, and this is a deliberate attempt to support the bid with unrelated credentials. It is contended that the Pest Control License submitted by the petitioner was invalid, as it conspicuously lacked a date of issue and validity period, especially when compared to the fully compliant certificate submitted by Respondent No. 4. Similarly, the petitioner's Solvency Certificate, expressed in "millions" instead of Indian Rupees, was in direct violation of the explicit tender condition 9.3.4. 6.1 With regard to the issue of blacklisting, it is contended that the petitioner's letter dated 21.06.2022 was deliberately submitted offline only on 28.06.2022, a week after the technical bid opening on 21.06.2022. The petitioner, being well-aware of the blacklisting and its suspension, chose not to upload the Court Order online as mandated by the tender conditions, thereby knowingly risking disqualification and forfeiting any right to complain. 6.2 It is contended that the petitioner, despite knowing of its disqualification on 20.06.2022, "wilfully kept quiet" and only filed its first writ petition on 12.09.2022, immediately after the work order was issued to Respondent No. 4 on 08.09.2022. 6.2 It is contended that the petitioner, despite knowing of its disqualification on 20.06.2022, "wilfully kept quiet" and only filed its first writ petition on 12.09.2022, immediately after the work order was issued to Respondent No. 4 on 08.09.2022. It is also contended that the entire tender process was validated by the learned Single Judge by recording a factual finding, after calling for and perusing the entire tender record, including price bids, that "by awarding the work to the Respondent No. 4 herein, the state is not incurring any loss." It is finally contended that the respondent No.4, having fully complied with all tender conditions is currently performing the services without complaint since 11.03.2023, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the petitioner insists its disqualification was uploaded on 20.06.2022, however, the said contention is rebutted by Respondent No. 1 by records that the technical bid evaluation commenced only on 21.06.2022. Further, it is the specific, evidence-based findings borne out by the record that the documents submitted by the petitioner is from three entities—"M/s Agile Security Force Pvt. Ltd," "M/s Agile Security Force," and "M/s Agile Security Force Private Limited"— with different EPF Establishment numbers. 7.1 The judicial review in contractual matters are well-settled; the scope of interference is intended to curb malafides or palpable arbitrariness, not to act as an appellate authority over the merits of an administrative decision.The tender was explicitly defined as a "purely online process" under Conditions 1.1.3, 1.1.11, and 1.1.12, which unequivocally mandated that all documents be uploaded online and further stating that the bids with deficient documents would be rejected and there is no provision for subsequent rectification. The petitioner’s attempt to submit a clarificatory letter offline on 28.06.2022 regarding its blacklisting status, after the technical evaluation was underway, was thus procedurally inconsequential. Further, the Pest Control License produced by the petitioner, without specific dates and the Solvency Certificate not in Indian Rupees, constituted non-adherence to the tender’s technical specifications. The petitioner’s attempt to submit a clarificatory letter offline on 28.06.2022 regarding its blacklisting status, after the technical evaluation was underway, was thus procedurally inconsequential. Further, the Pest Control License produced by the petitioner, without specific dates and the Solvency Certificate not in Indian Rupees, constituted non-adherence to the tender’s technical specifications. The respondent's adherence to terms of online tender process, and disqualifying the petitioner for not meeting the terms specified, cannot be construed as a violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was bound by the same terms it accepted upon participating.The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable, as they largely concern cases where the bid was rejected without affording opportunity. In the instant case, the petitioner’s bid was considered and was also re-considered in compliance of the Order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeals, and the petitioner was disqualified for not meeting the terms of the tender process. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for judicial intervention. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.