Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. v. The State of Telangana,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI

Judgment date: 2026-01-08

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-08. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on...

Judgment text

321s [ 1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WR lT PETITION NO: 9'197 &'12229 OF 2025 W. P. No. 9197 OF 2025 Between: PIot No. 66, 1. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. , Having its registered office at Authorised Vertika Tower, Secto-r ++, Gurugram, Haryana Represented by its Signatory Mr. Payyavula Sairam 2. Payyavula Sairam,, S/o Yadqgiri Aget about 45-y^e-ars^Rio H. No. 6-3-1231 B' Vah-astalipuram Rangareddy District, Telangana-500070. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Departme-nt Secretariai Buildings, Secretariaf, Hyderabad. Affairs Food and Civil 2 The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Consumer Somajiguda, Supplies Department Civil Supplies Bhavan, Errummanzil 'Hyderabad-500082. ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the af{idavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction, order, or orders, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the clauseisection-Page 8. 't to have a registered office in 3. 1 Pre-Oualification Criteria mandating the bidder Ref. No. lT-2l91012025. Telangana to participate in the tender bearing No. CCS dated 10. 03. 2025 for Procurement of Personalized PVC QR Code Smart Ration cards for Food and civil Supplies Department, Telangana bid as highhanded, illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutiona I and consequently suspend the clause/Section Page 8. B. 1 Pre-Qualification criteria in tender bearing No. CCS Ref . No. 1 T-2l91 ot2o25, dated 10. 03. 2025 for Procurement of Personalized PVC E/' QR Code Smart Ration Cards for Food and Civil S rpplies Department, Telanga na.

lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the cir rumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rr ry be pleased to stay all further proceeding pursuant to issuance of. T: tder bearing CCS Ref. No. lr-2l91012025, dated 10. 03-2025 procure-men: for rf personalized pVC QR code smart Ration cards for Food and civil Se rplies De-partment, Telangana floated by Food and civir Suppries Department, ( ivir Suppries Bhavan, Erramanlil, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082, India and in re arternative permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process in r:nder bearing ccS Ref. No. lr-2l91012025, dated 10. 03. 2025 procurement for f personalized pVC QR code smart Ration cards for Food and civir ri rppries Department, Telangana. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: The State of Telangana,, Rep. principal by its Secrelarr Food and Civil supptres Department Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat lyderabad.

2 The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs F rod -Soma;lg;Ja and Civil Supplies Department Civil Supplies'Bhavan, Errumma. , i Hyderabad-500082. ... PETlTIOl. t :RS/RESpONDENTS AND 1 Ltd. , Havins. its resistered I ptot frce at 5::f:tl.. l":Fol? s,". r. No. 66, venrKa rower. Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryani Repres. : rted by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Payyavula Satram i 2 Payyavula Sairam,, S/o yadag. iri Aged about 45 years Rio H. No. 6-3_123j l B, Vanasta tipuram Rangareddy distric[ Telangana-sbbOi : ... RESPONI] =NTS/PETITIONERS Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the cir :umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be preased be I pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in w. p. Nc 9197 of 2o2s dr. 17. 04.

2025 and subsequenfly being extended from time to t me, and dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits and pass such other orders F Counsel for the petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR CIVIL SUppLtES W. P. No. 12 22I OF 2025 Between: 1 Rosmerta Technoloores t td . Having Registered Office plot Vertika Tower . its at No. 66, Sectoi 44. Gurugram,-Hary"nr'iu"pr"u-r"nted by its Authorised Srgnatory [vlr. Payyavula Sarram. 2 Payyavula Sairam. yaclagiri, S/o Aged about 45 years Fyo H. No. 6_3_1231 vanastatipuram Rangareddy B, di. lrii(%6G;:s,o"o? jio ... PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Telanoana gV principal its BuS Secretary, Food and Civil Suppties Departmentl seiretjiiat sLiiol"gi,'s'#ltJiJi, uyoeraoao 2 The Commissioner of Civil Supplies Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies D,epfftment. Civit Suppties d6;;;"; Eil;irJ". ii"Boru;iguda, Hyder. abad_ 3 KL Hl-Tech Secure print Limited, prot No. 22-23, ANRT. H rndustriar Estate, rDA Boilaram.

Sangareddy retangiani,' tnJii u'_76it5e" 4 Printograpfl Systems (lndia). private Limited, plot No. 13 d, Kurla lndustrial Sadan Roa? , cna*op;iG. ti"H,tr. "'uri, rr,rrr,i-rllnt,'Jlii,. liil TLtS#:r,Seva ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be lr pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction, i order, or orders, more particurarry one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus decraring the areged reasons furnished by Respondents for rejecting the technicar bid of the petitioner as highhanded, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutionar and consequenfly direct the Respondents to open the Petitioner No. 1s financiar bid and consider the same. rn case the court finds that the sanctity I of the tender process has been compromised due to the highhanded, illegar, arbitrary and unconstitutionEr bctions of the Respondehts, Honourable cou( may forthwith cancel the ccS Ref. No.

lr _2191o1202s, dated 1010312025 for procurement personarized of pVC eR code smart Ration cards for Food and Civil Supplies Department, Telangana. i lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corr t may be pleased to direct the Respondents to submit all the records includir 1 not limited to office noting, letters, emails, Minutes of N,4eetings, etc. related to t re subject tender and also restrain the Respondents from proceeding with the award of the tender process arrsing out of CCS Ref. No. lT-2l9'l 012025, cti ted 1010312025 for Procurement of Personalized PVC QR Code Smart Ratior Cards for Food and Civil Supplies Department, Telangana floated by Foo 1 and Civil Supplies Department, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Erramanjil, Somajigudit Hyderabad-500 082, lndia.

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NOs. 9197 AND 12229 0F 202s DATE ot}.. ot. zoza W. P. No. 9197 of 2025 Between: Rosmerta Technologies Limited and Another Petitioners And The Sta[e Of Telangana, Represented by its principal Sccretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secrctariat, Hyderabad and Another. . Responden ts COMMON ORDE R The W. P. No. 9l9Z of 2025 was hled seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the Clause/Section of page g: B prc 1 Qualification Criteria mandating the bidder to have a registered olfice in Telangana to participate in the tender bearing No. CCS Rel. No. lT-2l91012025, dated . procurement 10. O3.

2O25 for of Personalized PVC QR Code Smart Ration Cards for Food ar-rd Civil Supplies Department, Telangana, bid as highhanded, illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to suspend the same and to pass such other order or orders in the intcrest of j ustice. 2. When mattcr was taken up for acl lission, r his Court, after hcerring both the parties, vide rders dztted 25. O3. 2O25 had directed the respondents to open : I the tenrlcrs including that of the petitioner company and 1r I her directed that if it is founcl that the petitioner company s the lou. est bidder, then the tenders may not be finalized a: I the matter ri,ill be decided or) merlts, but il the petitioner cLJ npanJi is not the lowest bidder, then the respondents are free rr linalize the tenders. Subsequently, lhe respondents havc opened the technical bids and found that the petitioner has rir I qualilied in lhe technical bid and therefore, its financial bid ivr; not opened. Challenging the same, thc W. p.

No. 12229 of 2O2S a rs been filed. Therefore, these two u,rit petitions are llled by t;r. same part5u and since the issues are interconnected and th,t were heard together and they are bcing disposed of by this :ommon and consolidated order. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this rvrit petition are that thc respondents have issued a Tendr: Notification No. CCS Ref. No. rT-2l9 tO/2025, dated 70. o i. 2O2S, for procurement of Personalized pVC eR Code Smarr ? ation Cards and one the Pre Qualification Criteria required thr: :idders to be Smart Cards manufacturers with a register. r d ofhce in ) 'lelangana. This condition was challenged in W. p. No. 9197 of 2025 and thereafter, the respondents have issued a Corrigendum on 2),. 03. 2025 modifying the Clause of the tcnder stating furthcr that the bidder should preferably have the manufacturing unit in Telangana State for quality control and that the registered ofhce any,where in the State is also acceptablc.

Consequent to the interim order of this Court dated 2r. O3. 2025, the petitioner's bid was accepted for scrutiny along with bidders from other States as we1l. Subsequent to the incerim order dated 25. 03. 2025, on 15. O4. 2025 the respondents have informcd this Court that the petilioner company has not qualified in the technical bid as it has not satisfied tu. o conditions i. c. , 1(1), 2(b) of Section-D of the tender conditions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted before this Court that the said information has not been furnished to the petitioner and the reasons have not been communicated. In view thereof, vide orders dated 17. O4. 2025, this Court had directed the respondent No.

2 to communicate the reasons for disqualifying the pelitioner company in the technical bid and it was further observed that if the respondents have already not entered into any agreement with the successful bidder in the forenoon of that date, then the respondents were directed not to enter into any agreement witl. tl_re succcssful bidder. This u. rtc:rim order has bcen extended [r,t r. i tlme to time 5. In Lhe mcantime, on the commrr rication of the reasons lor holding petitioner as technicall. nol qualified, challenging the same, thc W. p. No_ 72229 ot202.. j ras been iiled. 6. The respondents have filed a count. ; affida'it along with stay vacatc petition and submitted that \ r. p. No. 9 I 97 of 2025 has becomc effectively iniructuous. Thi s (l )urt also finds that the corrrlrtrons ol having,r regisrered olTic t in Telangana has been rela_xed by the respondents and the res tondents have also considcred the tender submitted by thr: retilioner and therefore, the prayer thc W. p. No.

9l 97 of 2O2S cil r no longr:r be the grievance oI thc petitioner and the \\,. I petition is accordingly closed. 7. As rcgards W. p. No. 12229 ot 2025, jti ; noticed that the respondents have rejccted the petitioner,s tcc rnicar bid on following grounds: ,,On uerification c>f doc-uments' certa n gops tDere ld-entifted. in esPect of M/ s. Rt ;emerta Technologies Limited. , Gurgram, Haryana as letailed beloul: _l v I M/ s. Rosemerta Technologies limited, Gurgram, Haryana, has not produced encrypted eR application to fetch the digital uersion of the Ration cards along with the family members and missirtg seanitg features on the personalized PVC eR code smart rotion cards. The bidder has to comply failed uith the TechrttcaL spectfrcations as per Section D(1) of tender conditions. The bidder has requested to giue some time to rectifg the defects. The Cornmittee has allouted time till the next dag [. e. , on 28. 03. 2025 bg 11. 30 A. M.

, to the aboue bidder to shotu liue encrypted QR Code mobile oppLtcation to fetch digitaL uersion of ration card along LDith familA members dynamically. During eualuation of technical spectficotions on 28. 03. 2025 of M/ s. Rosemerta Technologles Limited, Gurgram, Horyana, the discrepancg follouing noticed: Erucrypted QR: The encrypted The bidder has failed to QR applicotion need to fetch the shou the Encrypted QR digital uersion of the ration card Code Applicatton to show along uith the familg members the digttal uersion of tlt-e i3 details uith dn option to Ration Card along uith l download instantly upon the I familg member details scanning uithout connecting to lrith an option to extemal links unlike the open doutnload instantly upon QR through the customiz,ed scanning uithout mobile application hosted in connecting to external department seruer. The solution links.

Thus, the bidder need to be demonstrated utith has complg para failed to the sample data as shared bg 2(b) under Section-D of the department during the tender conditions. technical eualuation. Sample-Personalized PVC 'rhe 8R bidde, ll-r:,s failed to 'eatures Code Smanl Ration Cards submit the of the 14. PVC )ode QR as per tender cct Titions, Duol Hidden In t ge and Relief Text. Tht' bidder has ed to c,t tplg para 1 (1) fa under Sec I ntD of tender conditiott. s Hence, M/ s. Rosemerta Technologitz:: Lirnited, Gurgro. m, Haryana is not qualifted irt the echnical bid. Therefore, the bidder is not eligiltlc the for financial bid. 8.

I-carned counsel for the petitioner sul tnittcd that as per the terms of the tender notihcation, the sarnl Lr: card had to be supplied b1, the respondenrs to the proprrr; 11 prospective bidders and since the petitioner rvas noL given ilr details of the smart card despite of specific request madr by email for procuring PVC QR Code Smart Ration Card, hey werc not supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner had gair-r sought a clarification on 2l . O3. 2025 for providing sampl_', of the smart card in order to enable them to submit its bid, lr rt no response was received and therefore, the petitioner sent I I email to the respondents on 24. O3. 2025, sharing their <:lrr, I design and requesting it to be considered and alternativel],. hey requcsted for samples and a one week extension for bid sr tmission.

It is I I statcd that the respondents never responded to the requests and tlrerefore, the petitioners proceeded to submit their bid with their own card designs, which included only eR codes and URLs. It is srated that the petitioners have responded to the qucrie s raised by thc respondents yia an email and also physically to respondent No. 1 along with the demonstration of Lheir encrypted QR code application. Subsequently, the department extended the petitioner,s deadline to 29. O3. 2025, to dcmonstratc a modificd app with data, as conhrmed in the email datcd 28. 03. 2025. It is srated rhat on 29. 03. 2025, t]ne Petitior-rer No. 1 dcmonstrated their modified eR code application to respondenr No. I and that the department was satisfied with both online and offline demos and raised no objections with regard to the technical specihcations of the sample ration cards. Hou,evcr, only during the course of hearing of the W. p. No. 9197 of 2025 on 15. O4.

2025, Lhe respondents had informed that the technical bid of the petitioner No. l was rejected for failing to meet two tender conditions. It is submitted that these objections are an 'afterthought' and were raised only to deieat the claim of the petitioner and with a pre-determined mind to select respondent No. 4. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have adopted a malicious and =! l unfair process of selection and have maliciouslJ. r Lsqualifiecl the petitioner's bid. It is submitted that the resp rnclents have rntenttonally not informed the Court about thc r. jectior_r of Lhe petitioner's bid on 27. 03. 202. 5 until thc hearing , r,r t5. 0. 1. -1025 beforc this Court. It is submittec{ Lhat u,hen L ;i r(i:ipolt(tcn ts hacl already decided to reject the petitioner,:i cchntcal brd, calling them on 28. O3. 2025 and 29. 03. 2025 1( dcrnons trate thcir card and its features is only a cover-ul) and a hrtile exercise.

Therr:lore, according to the learned c r rnsr:l for lhe petitioner, the respondents have acted in bar larth bv not providing samprcs to the petitioner No. 1 as reqrr ccr rrncrcr the tender conditions and that such an action Llr r, r,rrnrned rair competition and could result in a loss to the pulr c cxcheqr. ier. Accordrng to the learned counsel for the I), Lrtiorler. the petitioner has quoted pricc of Rs. 4. 7g/_ pcr carlr ,,r,hereas the rcspondents No. 3 and 4 have quoted around Rs_11/_ per card, u. hich is double the price quoted by the petiti. r r, r. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submr ,td that the pe[ltloner should be given a fair opportunity to su i: nil its sntart card afresh and the financial bid of the petitioner r; rould also be considered. , ,t1:E! € l __ffffiFs_ -. -r':ld = :4jii4sra t 9 9. The Learned Government pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent No.

2 has relied upon the averment in the counter affidavit, stating that the notif-rcation dated lO. O3. 2025 has been issued for procurcmcnt oI approximately 1 Crore BPL and 2O Lakhs APL Personalizcd pVC eR Code Smart Ration Cards and Section A(2) providcd time schedule of various tender-related events. I t is stated that thc pre-bid meeting was held on 17 . O3. 2O25 and in the said meeting, a sample card issued by the Punjab S [ate Government was shown but the petitioncr did not attcnd the same. [t is submitted that on receipt of the email from thc petitioncr on 18. 03. 2025 and the representative of the petitioner approached the ofhce on 22. 03. 2025, the very same sample card was shown to the pcLitioner's representatlve as wcll and the specifications of the same were also informed to the represenlative.

lt is submitted that the technical bid was submittcd by the petitioner after verification of the sample card and all the technical bids were considered and evaluated by a technical team and the bid of the petitioner has been found to be non-compliant with the requirements of the tender conditions. It is submitted that once the technical bid was opened, three messages were automatically triggered at O2:03 p. m. , 02:O9 p. m. , and 02:36 t' p. m. , on 11. O4. 2025 informing the partrcil r nts that tl-re technical cvaluation has been completed an I advising the bidder to log into e-procurement portal for furtlr r details. It is stated that lhc sample card has not been provid: I to anv o[ the bidders and that they were all provided the sar r rle czrrds only for inspection in the pre-bid meeting and the peti oner rrvas also allorved the r. crilir:atron of the sample card on 22. ( j. 2O2S. 10.

He placcd reliance upon the decisiorr ol tht: Iion,blc Supreme Court in [he case of Michigan Rubber [) ndia) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2012) rj SCC 2l(r, in support of his contentions that the Courts cann. i,tcrfcrc *,rtl. r thc terms of thc tender prescribed by the (j ) cntment just because thc Court feels that some other tern-rri rn the tt:nder n ould havr: been fair, wiser or logical. He also litced i reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supremc CourL tn the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Un:. r n of India, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, wherein the Cou- has held that thcre is a limited judiciat review in Govcrnmen lonrracts and tender disputes, especially those involving techr r :al issues. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the H,r r'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. p. Royappa Vs.

State ot Tamil Nadu, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3, wherein it was held 1l at thr: burden ') of proof for allegations of malafides is on the person making the allegations. Therefore, accord. ing to the learned Government Pleader for civ supplies, the respondents have fo owed the duc procedure in finalizing the tenders and since the petitioner did not qualify in the technical bid, the wcb portal will not permil the respondents to look into the financial bid of the petitioner. He therefore prayed for vacation of the interim order and dismissal of the writ pe[itions. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 also supported the stand of the Government ancl submitted that in the pre-bid meeting held on 17. 03. 2025, the sample cards were shown to those present in the meeting and that no physicat copy or sample of the card was given to them to take back. It is also stated that the petitioner seems to be raising the allegations upon their failure to pass the technical bid. 12.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refuted the claims of the responderits and submitted that reliance of the Government on the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Limit ed, (cited supral, is misplaced. It is stated that the judgment allows State agencies to set tender conditions but does not permit them to implement {i \ t2 those conditions in an arbitrary, discriminatorl or rnalicious way and that the respondents acted with a rc-determined 1 mindset, selectivelv enforcing condiLions artrl denving the petrtioner a fair chance. The learnecl counsel fbr the petitioncr further argued that the respondents -r reliance upc the decision in the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors cited supra) is also misplaced and submitted that the ii rid . judgrnent cncourages judici. rl rcslraint, but such restraint , oes not apply in cases of clear arbitrariness, bad faith or irr:. ionaliq'. It is subrnitted that other judgment in the case ol E. P.

Royappa (. cited supra), is arlso no[ applicable, as accorclir to 3 him. the respondent's failure to disclose the bid,s clection, the concealmen t of a demonstration video and the nc r -disclosure of linancial bicls as proof, lead to the conclusion that thelr fuqva ,'ro, discharged their burden of proof, requiring the r rspondents to justify their actions, 13. Learned Government pleader for Crvil Supplies also has hled a copy ol the smart card submitted b1 ,he petitioner and has tried to demonstrate that the require I features are missing in the card /) t3 14. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, as held by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. N. Joshi and Sons Limited Vs.

Nair Coal Services Limited and Others, reported in (2006) t 1 SCC 54g, tl-ris Court finds that it is the prerogative of the Government and the concerned Department to stipulate conditions for issuance of tenders and the bidders have to necessarily satisfy the conditions of the tenders unless the conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. While issuing the tender notifications, one of the conditions stipulated was that the tenderer should have a registered ofhce in Telangana and subsequent to challenge, it was modihed to the effect of preferably having a manufacturing unit in Telangana. However, conscquenl to the interim order of this Court, the tenders submitted by parties having registered office outside Telangana also have been received and considered. Therefore, there is no need to adjudicate the said issue at this stage as it would only be an academic exercise. 15.

The only issue that remains to be considered is the sustainability of the grounds on which the technical bid of the petitioner has been held to be not qualified. The reason given for disqualif,rcation was that the petitioner did not satisfv two il \ {j t4 conditions i. c. , 1(1) and 2(b) of Section D cf the tender conditions. According to the petitioner, the r. r:s;1 onclents never informed the petitioner about the rejection of t I : tcr:hnical bicl and that it wzrs informed in the Court ,O25 on 17. Oq. about the rejection. The reforc, according to the petitiorer rhis is an intentional and malicious act. Thus, it is requi ed Lo examine rvhether the respondents acted in an unf: r rnanner irr considering and rcjecting the petitioner technic:r bid.

The main reason for rejection is that the sample card su )milted tr], thc petitioner did not contain the encrypted eR cocl, application to show thc digital version of the ration -rg card al: rvith fumily member details with an option to downloacl nstantly upon scanning u'iLhout connecting to external links rnd that it did not contairl Dual Hidden Image and Relief Text. t he pe titioner is not denying that the above features are not avnrl rble. According to the pet,tioner, in spite of several requests, sz mple carcl rvas not provided. But, this Court finds that samp| card was not provided to any party but the sample card was s -rown to :rll the bidders in thc pre-bid meeting held on 17. O3. 2( 25 zrnd also to the petitioner during a physical appearan e beforc the respondent No. 1 on 21 . O3. 2O25. It is therefore, . he duty of the petitioner to collect the required data, prepare : r d demonstrate Lhe smart card as per the tender conditions.

This Court does not have the technical expertise to verify whether the card submilted b1, the petitioner contains the necessary and required featurcs to conte to any conclusion. Further, iI is not in disputc that the respondents have a technical team to evaluate the tender forms submitted by all the parties and the said team has found that the petitioner's bid was not in accordance rvith the lencler conditions. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot challenge the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground of non-satisfaction of a tcndcr condition in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Only if there is an arbitrary'action on the part of the Government or the concerned department in linalizariorr of the tender, can this Court interfere and the circumstances demonsLrated by the petitioner do not satisfy the said condition. 16.

According to the petitioner, the arbitrariness exhibited by thc respondents is in not providing the sample card and in not informing the deficiencies in the technical bid and not giving sufhcient opportunit5r and time to rectify the deficiencies and resubmit their sample card. However, this Court hnds that the tcnder notihcation gives the schedule for \ submission ol'Lenders as 3 p. m. , on 25. O3. 2025 rr rd opening of technical bid as u,ell as financial bid as 3 p. m. and 4 p. m, respectively on 26. 03 -2025- The pctitioner u'as g,t'cn rirnc Ltpro 29 . O3 -2025 to claniy Lhe que ries raised by the rc j ;oncle nls and the petitioner has also submittecl the details. i ou,ever, arfler evaluation of the said details onl1,, it was lirtr rd to be not satisfying thc technical requirements. In lhe ca s : of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs.

International Airport Auth rrity of India and Others, reportcd in (1979) 3 SCC 48tl, thc Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Euery action o' the exeatttue Gouentmeni. nust be informed tuith reason ancl : hould be free arbitroine from s s. Tltat is the uerg essence of tluz r tle of Lau. , and its bare minimal requirement and to the app't:ation of this pinciple it makes no difference whether the exerc,: e of the pouter inuolues offectation of some right or deniat of :t me priuilege. " This Court is satisfied that therc is no arbi[r't riness in thc action of the rcspondents. The decisions relierl upr>n by thc learned counscl for the respondents which are rl s cussed above, support this view. 17. In view of the same, this Court dor: not hnd any merit in W. P. No. 12229 of 2025 and is liable to br, lismissed ) L7 18. In the result, (i) W. P. No. 9197 of 2025 is closed. (ii) W. P. No. 12229 ot 2025 is dismissed. (Lii) Thcrc shall be rro order as to costs.

(iv) Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed sor- r. lntNrvASA REDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, i One CC to IvIiSINDUS LAW FIRM. Advocate. [O(U t \ 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies. i BSK I i GJP I I I I I \-s HIGH COURT DATED:0810112026 tliS TA, d . r ? 8 tn z['6 /, ! t 'ct{ COMMON ORDER WP. No. 9197 & 12229 of 2025 CLOSING THE W. P. No. 9197 OF 2025 & DISMISSING THE W. P. No. 12229 OF 2025 WITHOUT COSTS 6 ( L lr

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.