Sri Srinivasa Constructions v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-19. Sri Srinivasa Constructions v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
| .. - [ 3383 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 37 09 0F 2026 Between: Sn Srinivasa Constructions, H. No. 9-4-358/1. Saothaoiri Colony, Karimnagar, - Karimnagar District, Rep. by its Managing partner, Sri A. Dasharathareddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged a6out 52 years]Odc. Business. .... PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Roads and Buildings, Dr,B. R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Tenders, Government of Telangana, Chinthala Bhasthi, Khairathabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer. (R AND B), Central Road lnfrastructure Fund (CRIF), Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 4 The Superintending Engineer (R AND B), Karimnagar Town and District ...
RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents (a) in issuing the fresh tender notifications vid6 NtT No. 05/DSE/sEK/Rand B/KMNRy2025-26/ciF/05, dated 24-O1-2026 and NIT No. 06/DSE/SEt(Rand B/KMNRy2O25-26/CRF/06, daled 27 -O1-2026 for the works viz. , (1) widening and strengthening of single tane to double land road from Arnakonda Village of Chppadandi Mandat to Mallial X road from Km. 0/0 to 35/00 via Giopalraopet Village of Ramadugu Mandal in Kariminagar District and (2) for the works of widening and strengthening of Vemulawada to Sirikonda road from Km. 10/0 to 2Bl2 in Rajanna Sircilla District, { (b) not considering the case of the petitioner for awari rg the contract works i pursuant to the Tender Notification vide Nlr No.
o2IDSE/S: (/Rand B/KMNR/2024- I I 25/cRF/o2, dated 1 5-1 1-202s and render Notification vidr: r,llr No. 03/DSE/SEtvR and B/KMNR/2024- 25tcRFl03, dated '15-1 1-2o2s as illel i 1, arbitrary, viotative of principles of naturar justice and arso suffer from mara ide intention and for extraneous reasons apart from being viorative of Articres 1 -, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of rndia and consequentry (c) set aside the npugned fresh tender notifications vide Ntr No. 05/DSE/SEK/R AND B/KMNR/2 )25-26lcRF/05, dated 24-01-2026 and NIT No. 06/DSE/SEK/R and B/KMNR/2)}) z}rcRF106, dared zr- 01-2026, (D) further consequently direct the respondents t consider the case of the petitioner for awarding the works viz. , (1) widening and trengthening of single lane to double land road from Arnakonda Viflage of chppac rndi Mandar to Ma iar X road from Km. 0/0 to 35/00 via Giopalraopet Village o.
lamadugu Mandal in Kariminagar District and (2) for the works of widening tnd strengthening of Vemulawada to sirikonda road from Km. 10/0 to 2Bt2 in R rjanna sircila District pursuant to the tender notification vide Nlr No. o2lDSE/sE[, ? and B/KMNR/2024- 25lcRF/02,dated 15-11-202s and render Notification vide t' rr No. o3/DSE/SEKR and B/KMNR/2o24-ZS|CRFlO3, dated 15_11_2025, in accorcz 1ce with law. l. A. NO:1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the cir )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court me z be preased to grant stay of all further proceedings incruding receiving of tender rpprications pursuant to the tender notifications vide NtT No. 05/DSE/SEI(R&B/KI\il :N}O2S- 26ICRF/05, dated 24-01'2026 and Nrr No 06/DSE/SE[(R&B/KMNR/202 i-26l cRF/06, dated 27-01-2026 respectivery issued by the 4th respondent, per ling disposar of the above writ petition. l. A.
NO:2 OF 2026 Between The Superintending Engineer (R AND B), Karimnagar Town anc District. ..... PET|T|ONER/ TESpONDENT No. 4 AND 1 . Sri Srinivasa Constructions, H. No-9-4-358/1, Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri A. Dasharathareddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Busrness. ..... RESPONDENT/wRIT PETITIONER 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Roads and Buildings, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Tenders, Government of Telangana, Chinthala Bhasthi, Khairathabad, Hyderabad. 4. The Chief Engineer (R AND B), Central Road lnfrastructure Fund (CRIF), Erramanzil, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt. 06-O2-2026 passed in LA. No. 1 of 2O26 in W. P. No.
3709 of 2026 and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ALLADI RAVINDER, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI Counsel for the Respondents : SRI T. RAJINIKANTH REDDY, ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following ORDER J ll/P. No-3709 oJ 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE O[ IELANCANA I I AT HYDERABAD I i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT ! NARAYANz\ ALISHETTY WP. No. 3709 o12026 Dated:19. 02. 2026 Between: Sr i Sr i nivas a Co ns t ruc t ion, Karimnagar. repld by its Managing P ar tn er-A. Da. s ha ra t hareddy . . Petitioner And: The State of Telangana, reptd. , by its Principal Secretaty, Department of Roads and Buildings, : Hyderabad and ! hree others i I I .. . Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is tlted seeking the fbllcving subsranrive relief: ". -.
to issltc ttn order or direction ntore particulu-v one in lhe nature of v;rit of Mandomus declaring tlrc octi ,n of the respondents-(i) in issuing the tender fresh notifirat ons vide NIT No 05/DSE/SEK/R&B/ KA,{NR/2025-26/CRI. / 5 datect 24 01. 2026 und NIT No 06/DSE/SEK/R&B/KM\ R/2025- 26/CRF/06. dared 27. 01. 2026 for the work^s. , viz. , o widening und strengthening oJ single lane to tlo,, tle land road fronz Arnakonda Village of Choppadandi Al ntdal to Mollial X roatl Km fi. om 0/0 to 35/00 via Go,. ; rlraopet Y I wP. No.
3709 of 2026 District and Village of Rttmadugu Mandal in Kartmnagar of widening and strengthening (ii) the works of for 28/2 in road Km 10/0 to from Vemulowada to Sirikonda (iii) not considering rhe case of Rajanna Sircilla Dislrict, to av'arcling llrc conftacl works pursuant tlle petitioner for vitle NIT No 02/DSE/SEK/R& tlrc Tcnder Noti/ication tlated t5 t1 2025 and Tender B/KMNR/2024-25/CRF/02 N o t i li c a t io rt v ide N IT N o' 0 3 / DS E/S EI(/ R& B/ K MN R/ 2 0 2 I - 25/CRF/03 dated 15 1 1 2025 as illegat' arbitrary' violative justice and also suffers from of principles of natural extraneous reasons' apart "from malaJide intenlion and for rhe 21 Articles 14' and 300A of being violarive of (iv) to set aside India and consequenlly Constitution of vide NIT tender notirtcations tlrc impugned . fi'esh dated No. 05/DSE/SEK/R&B/KMNR/2025-26/CRF/05' 24. 01.
2026 and NIT No 06/DSE/SEK/R&B/KMNR/2025' 26/CRF/06dated270l'2026ond'(v)further'consequently the cose of lhe lo consider b clirect llrc respottdents viz (i) widening and pelitioner for awarding the works ' land toad from to double of sittgle lane stre rtgtltett ing Mandal rc Mallial X I Village of Choppadandi Arnakoncla Vitlage of via Km 0/0 to 35/00 Gopalraopet roatl front RamaduguMandalinKarimnagarDislrictand(ii)forthe of Vemulawada to slrcngthening works of tt idening and Rajaruto Sircilla road Km 10/0 to 28/2 in Sirikonda ft'ont vide NIT No'02/ putsuant to the tender notilication Districl I 2' dated 15. 11. 2025 R/ 2 O 2 4 2 5 /C RF/O DS E/S E K/ R& B/ K MN vide NIT No 03/DSE/ and Tender NotiJicatiort in 15. 11. 2025 R & B / K MN BJ 2 O 2 4 2 5 / C R F / O 3 dated S E K/ " v) ith law accordance -+;;. 8:-irtta: I-NA, J tl'P. No.
3709 of 2026 Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned senior counr ,l appearing for Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel-or- ecord lor the petitioner, and Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, leamed Addrr onal Advocate General appearing lor respondents. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing lor petitioner submitted that initially, respondent No. 4 issued notificarion NIT \r . 02/DSE/SEK/ R&B/KMNR/2024-25|CRF|02 (for shorr, hereinafte. r. eferred ro as 'NIT No. 02') dated 15. 11. 2025 for widening and st engrhening of single lane to double lane road from Arnakor< a Village of Choppadandi Mandal to Mallial X road tiom KM 0/ ) to 35/00 via Gopalraopet Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karirnnas: ' District and respondent No. 4 also issued another tender notiflcatir n NIT No. 03/ DSE/SEK/R&I]/KMNR/2024-25/CRFlO3, (for shor, hereinafter referred to as 'NIT No. 03') dated 15. 11. 2025 lor . r,idcning and strengthening of Vemulawada to Sirikonda road lro r KM I 0i0 to 2812 in Rajanna Sircilla Dish.
ict, inviting bids r n or befbre 01 . 12. 2025. The time lirnit for completion of the ccr tract work in respect of notification NI'l' No. 02 was l8 lnonths an, the contract value was Rs. 34,91,86,193/-, whereas the period for ompletion of work in respect of NIT No. 03 was l5 months and the ontract value was Rs. 15,41,86,000/- ! WP. No. 3709 oJ 2026 3. 1. In pursuance of the said tender notifications, the petitioner submitted bids and the same werc accepted by respondent No. 4 vide confirmation ID No. 3325239 dated 29. 11. 2025 for NIT No. 02 and confirmation tD No. 3325378 dated 29. 11. 2025 for NIT No. 03. 3. 2. As per the tender schedule, the bids were proposed to be opened on 02. 12. 2025, however, the same was not done and surprisingly, respondent No. 4 issued fresh tender notification vide (For NIT No. 05,DSE/SEK/R&B/KMNW2025-26lCRFl05, short, hereinalter referred to as 'NIT No. 05') dated 24. 01. 2026 insofar as work under earlier tender notification NIT No.
02 is concemed and the contract value was increased to Rs. 35,7 1,4 1,9301-, however the time for completion of work was reduced to 12 months from 18 months' Respondent No. 4 has also issued another tender notification NIT 106, (For short, No. 06/DSE/SEK,{{&B/KMNN2025-261CRF hereinafter referred to as 'NIT No. 06') dated 27. 01. 2026 in respect of the same work as that of earlier tender notification NIT No. 03, and the the tenure value of contract was increased to Rs. I6,45,43 ,2811-, and months 15 months' for completion of work was reduced to six fiom 3. 3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the eligibility criteria for executing the works depends upon the time period stipulated for completion of work and as per Clause-S of tender ' I l'. h'o..
1709 oI2026 notification, the available bid capacity is calculat: I as per the principle ol 2AN-B, where 'A' stands lor highest tr'liover in one financial year in any of the l0 financial years and N' stands lor number ol years lor completion of work lor which ten' rrs are invited and 'B' stands for updated value of all existing commirr rr'nts' 3. 4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that t e pctitioner is i. e, duty quatified lor the tender notifications initialtf is 'ued NIT No. 02 and NIl' No. 03, however, in view of increase of contract value and reduction in tenure for completion of work, the pc ioner is put to disadvantageous position. He further submitted that rt': pondent No'4, without assigning any reason and without infor r ration to the No. 02 and petitioner, cancelled the earlier tender notifications '[-f No. 03, onty to exclude the petitioner and therefore, he subsequent tender notifications i. e. , NIT No. 05 and NIT No.
06 ar: illegal and the same were issued with a mala fide intention an( lhe petitioner submitted a representation dated 04. 02. 2026. He lir lrer submitted that the last date for submission of tender is 09. 02. 20. 1 and technical ' bids witl be opened on the same day and in the eve I , the technical bids are opened on 09. 02. 2026, third party rights r,'ct ld accrue and therefore, the present Writ Petition is hled seeking inc rlgence of this CoUrt** WP. No. 3709 of 2026 4. Leamed senior counsel for petitioner in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banshidhar Construction Private Limited Vs. Bharal Coking Coat Limited antl olherst and Shanti Construction Private Limitett Vs. State of Odisha and others2 and prayed to allow the Writ Petition 5. In Shanti Construction Pvt. Limited's case (cited supra), it is held as follows:- "A public tender is nol a privote bargain.
It is inslrument of governonce, a mechanism througlt which the State discharges its solemn duty as trustee of publtc wealth. Its purpose is not rnerely procedural compliance, but maximisation of public valtte through a process i. e. fair, transporent and competitive. The obligation of the Tendering Authority is therefore rwo fold, namely, to interpret its own terms with consistency and to ensure that such interpretation advances. not defeats, the object of tender. The court musl intervene in a case of demonstrable misconstruction of a tender condition or itationality which affects lhe pubLic interest. When an interpretation of a tender condition narrovrs competition and excludes the highest bidder on a ground ttnsupported by law, the decision making process is vitiated. The interpretation of the terms of tender must, therefore, serve the obiect and purpose of the tender mainly lo maximise the revenue to the " State, when it deals with o natural resource.
(zoz+) ro scc zz: ' H mzs icc ontine sc 2368 \z I l'. to. 3 7l)9 oI2026 6. ln Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Limited's ca; : (cited supra), it is held as follows:- "Government bodies being public authorities at. c t :pec ted to uphold fairness, equality and public interest (\t- t v ltile deoling wilh contructual matters. Right to equall. wtler Article l4 abhors arbitrariness. Public authoritit,: ? ove lo ensure lhut rut bias, favouritism or arbitrariness Lu. t shown during the bidding process and that the enlir,' tidding process is corried out in absolutely transparenl m(t,, (r. ' 7. Per contra, Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, lear. r :d Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nt,. 1. principally contended that due to administrative exigencies, the sc.. re of work has been revised and additional provisions of site drair : and d rainage facility at Matlail X Road are included in rhe rv.
: 'li, wh ich are essential to overcome flooding and to ensure good c a i rlge f'ac ility at Mamidipally Vitlage and to avoid damages to roa, j antl as such, respondent No. 4 had to issue fresh tender notifications r t:. , NI'l No. 05 and NIT No. 06. He further submitted that as per cnder Clause No. 28. 2, the authority has right to cancel the tendcr. , nd exercising such power, the earlier notifications i. e. , NIT Nos. 02 rl d No. 03 were cancelled because of exigencies and there is no mala 1i Ie intention or extraneous reason for cancellation of the carlier tenrl: notifications, as Ytleged by the petitioner. I{e further submitted that rsolhr as NIT / lo LNA, t l(P. No'3709 oJ 2026 period was reduced taking into No. 02 is concemed, the work held in consideration the fast approaching Godavari Pushkaralu to be vehicular July, 2021 and to facilitate lree movement of movement during Pushkaralu. the tender received the 7. 1.
He further submitted that all participants information through online e-procurement portal and the modifications, conigendums, addendums, notifications of tender are published on CPP portal and would be automatically notified to all bidders through their registered emai[/sms, thereflore, the contention of the petitioner that it was unaware of the same is factually incorrect. He further submitted that the earlier tenders were cancelled because of revision in the scope of work and to incorporate additional works and for smooth and unintenupted vehicular lnovements during Godavari pushkaralu. Therefore, there is no illegatity or arbitrariness on the part of respondent No. 4 in cancelling the earlier tender notifications and the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the subsequent tender notifications.
He further submitted that the petitioner has not participated in the subsequent tender notifications, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition and as such, the Writ Petition, being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed' . / I] L,\A, J u/P. n\tJ709 of 2026 8 Learned Additional Advocate General furthc. submitted that tender conditions empower respondent No. 4 to cance i enders without assigning any reason. The petitioner having agreed tr the terms and couditions rnentioned in the tender notifications, canr< t challenge the action of respondent No. 4 in cancelling the tender r ctifications on untenable grounds. 8. 1. He lurther vocilerously submitted . r.
that in tenri rrratters, the scope of interf'erence by the Courts is very limited ar u if the present writ Petition is allowed and the impugned tender rLr tificarions are cancelled, it will have cascading effect on the Sr rre exchequer including escalation of contract value of works be; des depriving citizens the benefits of infrastructure and accordirl ly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. 2. Leamed Additionat Advocate General for resp. : rdent No. 4 in support of his contentions, has relied upon the follor,,,inr . judgrnenrs:_ I . Stote of Jarkhond ond ors Vs. CWE-SOMA Consltr t unt, 2 Order dated 03. 10. 2024 petition in Writ No. IgS4 j oJ' 2024 trnd batch. J. N. G. Projects limited Vs, Vinotl Kumar Jsin and ors 4. Shinmit Utsch Indio pvt. ltd Vs. ll/est Ben;i rl Transport Infrostructure Developmenl Corporation limited and o ss I20to 1r+1 scc rzz zozz 1a1 scc tzt r . 12 H'P. No. 3709 of 2026 g.
|nCWE-SIMAConsorlium,scase(citedsupra),theHon'bie as follows:- Court observed Supreme ,,Incaseofatencler,lhereisnoobligationontlrcparto. fthe lenders or any of the nolice to occept person issuing tender and on called a tender is for rcnder' After even the lowest who have status of the conftaclors rates or lhe seeing tlte issuing lhe person competition' there is no given tenders that thereby b enter ittb any conlracl and decide not rcnder may hos as lhe bid settled that so long tender' It is well cancel the no vcsted right acqLtires the highest biclder not been accepted' " concluded in his favour' b have the auction 10. Intheorderdated03'10. 2024passedinW. P. No. l8543of2024 it is held as hereunder:-and batch, judiciaL anall'sis and " ....
In view of the preceding pronouncements,thisCourtdeemsitappropriatellutthcreis the parl of thc tendering or malafide on no arbitrariness of tender process' lo cancellatiott lTith regdrd authorities the preclude tloes nol cancellation the said However, parlies lo participarc in os olher interested petilioner os well in the near may be Jloated tender notification lhat the fresh " fulure. the Hon'ble CASC (cited suPra), Proiecls limited's I 1. In N. G held as follows:- Supreme Court s SCc 303 2616 15) I ,] U'P. No. 3709 of 2026 "In vie,,- of the above judgments of this Court, the vrit court should ref-ain itself from imposing its decisirtn over lhe decision oJ tlte employer as to vthether or nol tt) t ccept the bid of a lenderer. The Court does not have lhe () )erttse lo exatnine the lerms and conditions of the present tla_, zcononic actit,itie. s oJ the State and this limitation should t e kept in vieu'.
Courts should be even more reluctanl irt t tterJbring with contrdcls involving technical issues as tl :re is a re(luirement of tlrc rtecessary experlise to adjudi, ote Ltpon such issues. The opproach of the Court should be r ct to Jind w h tnagnifiing glass in its hands, rather he Court faulr shoultl erunine as lo whether the decision-making u oce. ss is after contplying with the procedure contempldte I bv the tender conditions. If the Court thet t is lotal finds that arbilroriness or that lhe lender has been granted I a mala -fering manner, still the fide Court should refrain in from intt the grant of tender bul instead relegale the part't s lo seek damages. for tlrc wrongful exclusion rather lhan to i yuncl the execution Of the contracl. The injunction or inteil trence in lhe lendcr leads to additionol costs on the Stale tt, d is also against public inlerest. Therefore, lhe State and i,; citizens su,(. [e r lu ic'e.
firstly bv paying escalation cosls atttt secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure which ,l 2 present for day Governments are expected to work. " 12. ln Shimnit Ulsch India Private Limiled's cas : (cited supra), the Supreme Court held that the Government has disc- tion to aclopt a different policy or alter or change its policy to serv: public interest una iruT" it more ef'fective in the context of tender corr, itions. t4 LI/P. No. 3709 of 2026 Consideration: 13. The petitioner principally submirted rhat respondenr No. 4 cancelled the earlier tender, without assigning any reasons, only to exclude the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to explain as to how he is affected or put to disadvantageous position because of increase in value of contract work and decrease in tcnure lor completion of work in the subsequent tender notifications. The petitioner failed to place on record any material to substantiate the said contention.
Further, the petitioner has not participated in the lresh tender notifications issued by respondent No. 4, therelore, the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned counsel lor the petitioner have no application to the present case. 14. In the counter filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, reasons for. cancellation of earlier tender notifications and issuance of lresh tender notifications have been explained, as per which, the value ol work in NIT No. 2 was increased because of inclusion of additional works and insofar as decrease ol tenure for completion of work in NIT No. 3 is concemed, the same became necessary for ensuring free vehicular movement during the fast approaching Godavari pushkaralu scheduled to be held in luly, 2027 . ) I,NA, J I P. No. 3709 of 2026 r that the 1 5.
Learned Additional Advocate General sub itted r t ry limited and scope of review by this Court in tender matters is that, this Court cannot go into the technical aspects lf tenders and or e in'egularities cannot enteftain writ petition unless malafides gl'e\ are pointed out and established. 16. ln the instant case, according to respondent N: 5' cancellation of tender notiflcations, NIT Nos. 2 and 3 was necessi'r ted becatrse of exigencies and subsequent developments and therefor: the contention of the petitioner that the same are cancelled only to , xclude it from participating in the subsequent tenders is untenable irr the absence of any material on record. 17 . Here, it is appropriate to refer to Clause-28. 2 of lnstructions to Tenderers appended to'Iender conditions which rez t s as under:- 'The tentler ac(epting authority reserves the i ,lht to accept or reject any lender or all lenders and lc nncel the tendering process, at any time prior lo the a.
t zrd of controcl, without thereby incurring any liabilit. ' to tlrc affected tendercr or tenderers or any obligt t r-tn to inform the aJfected tenderer or tenderers of lhe ' osorts such oction". for r8 Thus, the above Clause empowers the l-cr der Accepting Authority to cancel the tender notification withou t assigning any reasons I6 tt/P. No. 3709 of 2026 19. In the light of the contentions raised by the leamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as leamed Additional Advocate General, belore proceeding further, it would be useful to reler to the principles and parameters set down in a catena ol decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and extent of' interference by the Courts in the matters of tenders and contracts. 20.
The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the need to find a right balance between administrative discretion to decide the matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues ofsocial policy and the unlairness is set right by judicial review. 21. ln Tata Cellulnr vs. Ilnion of India6 it is hetd as under: " The principles deducible from the above are' (t) The modern trend poinls to judicial restraint in adm inis h'ative act ion. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely revievs the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not hdve the experlise to correct lhe administrative decision. Il a teview of the administrative decision is perntitled it will be substituling its own decisiott, without the necessary experlise which itself malt be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contracl.
Normally speaking, the decision to accepl the tender or award the controct is reoched by process of u &se 1oy scc osr t7 I,NA, J tt/P. No. 3709 oI2026 negotiations through several tiers- More often thar tot, such decisions ore made quolitativelv by experts. (5) Thc (iovernmenl must have of a,, troct. In freedom other vrords, a foir plav in the joints is ct e ce s-\arv concontildnt an administrative body ginan for functioni oclministrutive sphere or q uds i-administrath,( sphere. Hov'cver, the decision musl tlol only be lesltt h the opplicatiotr of Wednesbury principle of reastt ableness (including its olher above) but n t t be. free facts pointed out not affected by bias or actuate') hy nnla . from arbitrariness . /ides (6) decisions may impose heavy adn t t is lr at ive Quoshing 'sed and burdan on the administration and lead to incr,t' unbudgeted expenditure. " 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ju1:,tish Mandd vs.
Stale of Orisso o nd OlhersT , observed as under: "Judicial ret,iew of administrotive aclion is intencie t lo prevent arbilrariness, irrationality-, unreasonableness, bia. ; ond mala Its purpose is to check v,helher choice or deci: t tn is made . /ides. " " 'ecision luw'fully und nol lo check whether choice or, is "sound". Il'|rc n the polteer o. f judicial review is qvoked in mattars rclating to lenders or award of contra: s, c ertain special Jbutures sltould be borne in ntind. A ctr tracl is o comnterciol lronsdclion. Evulualing tenders and awording conlracls ure essentially contntercial Pr nciples functions. of equity and natural juslice stay at a distance. I;f tl : decision relating lo award of contract is bonafide and ts in public' ' 2oo7 (14) scc s17 wP. No.
3709 oI2026 power of judicial review' interest, courts will not' in exercise of error in assessment a interfere even if procedural aberralion or power of made out' The iudicial a tenderer' is or prejudice to protect private permitted to be invoked to reviev' will ttol be decide contractual public interest or to inlerest al llte cosl of tenderer or controclor with a grievance con dispules. The unsuccessful always seek tlamages in a civil court' Atlempls by pride and reitll imaglnary grievances' wounded knderers of moLehills of some lo make mountains out business rivalry, technical/proceduralviolationorsomeprejudicetoself,and power of judicial by exercising lo interfere persuade courts review,shouldberesisled. Suchinrerferences,eitherinterimor delay relief ond works years' or for may tnld up public final, the projecl and millions and may increase succor to thousands costmanifold.
Tlrcrefore,acourlbeforeinterferingintenderor review power of iudicial in exercise of contraclual nlalters questions: to itself the should pose following by the or decision made process adopted (i) Whether tlle someone; intended to mala or favour aulhorittt is J"ide Or arbitrary or decision made is so adopred Whether the process can say: and irrationol that lhe Court ,,Thedecisionissuchthatnoresponsibleaulhorityacling law could havc with relevant and in accordance reasonably " affected (ii) interest is Weother public reached the or auctions and government contracts law regarding 23. The review is well settled' scope of its judicial nature and l9 tlP.. No. 3709 of 2026 24. In M/s Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. vs. Slate ol lfurnalaka and orsE, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "From lhe abctve decisions, thefollowing, principle: tnerge: (a) The basic requirentenl of Article l4 is fairnes: i action by the Stale.
and non-arb itrar iness in essence and sub; tncc is the heartbeat of play These actions dre omen(. 5\e lo the fair judiciat review only to the extent that lhc Slate mu:l ctct validly a discernible reason ctnd not whimsically t. t. v trherior for for purpose. II the State acts within the bounds of rea. , nableness, tt (' it would be legilimate lo lake into consideration ndtional priorilies: (b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirelv vilhin lhe purview o. f the executive and the courts hardly hav,' tny role to play in this process except for striking dou'n such ,t lion of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreaso t 'ble.
If the Government acts in conformity with cerlain healtl') standards and nornts such os awarding of contracls by invitin '-, lenclers, irt those circtttnslances, the interference by courts is t t lintited; "'t (c) In the motter of conditions ('t a lender formulating ts documenl and awarding a contract, greoler latitud,' retluiretl to be conceded to the State authorities unless lhe Lr' lion of the tendering atrthorilt is found to be malicious and u t isuse o. f its statutory po\rers, interference by courls i. \ not v)arr 1 t/ed, (d) Cerlain precondilions or qualirtcotions for ten'| rs have to be laid down to ensure that lhe conlractor has the ,', pacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; an,7 (e) If the Slttle or its instrumentalities act reasonahtl . fait ly and in public interest in awarding conlract, here again' i terlbrencc \- 8+012 (8) scc 216 . 20 tlP. No.
3709 oJ 2026 a by court is velar reslriclive since no person cdn cldim " business rttith the Government right to carrv on fundamental Hon'ble Apex Coutt Lld' v' NTPC Llde'' the 25. In Montecarlo best person to authority is the the tender inviting observed that It in the tender documents' its requirement understand and appreciate follows:-has further obserwed as is manifestly in a decisiort is laken that .....
Wltere tlrc tender document or with the langttage of consottance the is v'hich the tender Jloated' for subserves lhe purpose of restraint' Technical tlte principle court should folLow would be by the court or cttmparison evaluation to scan and The principle that is applied impermissible controcl in relatable to instrument understand an ordinary than interpreling has to be treated differently other spheres technical relating to documents and appreciating tender requiring speciol skills' The owner should works artd projects to be and there has lo corn' out the purpose be allowed ptaf in tlrc allowance offi'ee 'ioints"' (Jnion v' of Indiu antl Contractors 26. ln Silppi Conslructions realize obserued that the Courts must Hon'bte Apex Court Ors'0.
, the in which needless interference and the havoc' their limitations technical involving could cause' ln contracts commercial matters because most ol us in be even more reluctant issues, the Courts should e ()oL6\ 15 SCC 272 ,o'iotg€cc ot'luNE sc 1133 - 2t ,rp. ,r". tzoc! llizl6 judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise tc idjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. In flact, the Cotrr t must give "fair play in the joints" to the govemment and public sectc I undertakings in matters of contract. Coufis must also not inter i re where such interference would cause unnecessary loss to the publi : exchequer. 27. The Apex Court lurther held that unless t: ) action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and misus : of its statutory powers, tender conditions are unassailable 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balaji l', ntures Privale Limited vs.
Maharashtro Stale Power Generr''ion Company t Limitedt held as under: " Owner should always have the to rovide the freedont eligibility criteria and/or the terms and condititt,t of rhe bid unless it is found to be arbitrary,, mala Jide andhtt uilor made. The bidder/tenderer cannot he permitled to chal,t rye rlte bid ': cond ilion/clause whiclt might nol suit him and. /ot' ,nvenient lo him. As per the settled proposilion of lavt as suclt it , an offer lo the prospeclive bidder/tenderer to compele and sub r ru the tender considering the ternts and conditions mentionecl i. the tender documenl. " 29. ln Jagadish Mandul's case (ciled supra), it ,r rs observed that the power of judiciat leview will not be permitteri t r be invoked to f ib22 SCC online I967 K WP. No. 3709 of 2026 protect the private interest at tlie cost of public interest. In the very paragraph, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the tenderer or civil contractor who has grievance can always seek damages in the court.
(Indfu) 30. ln Michigan Rubber Lltl's case (cited supra), it was inter alia observed that certain preconditions or qualifications for tenderers have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work. The interference by the Court has to be very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the government. the 31. From the above judicial precedents, it is clear that firstly, tenderee/employer has discretion and freedom to set the terms and conditions ol bid as well as the eligibitity criteria of bid. 32. Secondly, since the Court lacks technical knowledge, the Courts cannot examine the technical aspects, intricacies of tender including detailed examination olthe terms and conditions of tender' 33.
Thirdly, the scope ol judiciat review is limited in tender matters and the Courts shall restrain from interfering with tender matters unless mala fides or grave irregularities, or arbitrariness, or misuse of power or procedural irregularities are established. --z \ ,vr. r". :rocli*! izl 34. Fourthly, the Courts should keep in mind, th; cancellation of tenders would have cascading elfect including esc t ation ol project cost and burden on exchequer and depriving citizer: of enjoying the infrastructure. Further, the bidder has alternat I e renredy of approaching the civil Court for damages. 35. In the present case, it is the specific case of :titioner that the 6 value of contract work was increased and the period I lr completion of work was decreased only to exclude petitioner and to put the petitioner in disadvantageous position.
However, ') e petitioner has failed to explain as to how it was aft-ected by modil'r ation olterms of the tenders and has failed to place any mate r i I on record to substantiate the same. i6. Thepetitionerhasalsocontendedthatearlie''enderscancelled without any reasons and without inlorming the peL 'ioner' However, as per Clause-28. 2 of Instructions to Tenderers wh r h is appended to Notice Inviting Tenders, i'e. , NIT Nos'2 and 3, r: pondent No'4 is empowered and entitled to cancel the tender witl t r-rt assigning any reasons. Moreover, admittedly, the petitioner did nt'r participate in the subsequent tenders i. e. , NIT Nos. 5 and 6. 37. Further, it is the specific contention of resl ondent No'5 that information of tenders is sent to all the biddels/ enderers to their Y WP. No. 3709 of 2026 the contention of the petitioner that it registered email/sms, therefore, of MT Nos'2 about the cancellation is unaware and is not informed and 3 is factuallY incorrect.
Conclusion:- legat position' this Cou( the above discussion and 38. In view of that the petitioner failed to establish the mala is of considered opinion procedural irregularity on the part ofrespondent fides or perversity or i'e'' NIT and 3 and issuing fi'esh tenders No. 4 in cancelling NIT Nos. 2 Nos. 5 and 6. same this Writ Petition fails and the 39. For the foregoing reasons, is liable to be dismissed. No costs' this Writ Petition is dismissed' 40. Accordingty, if any' shall stand closed' 41. Miscellaneous petitions pending, vacated' No costs' 06. 02 shall stand Interim order dated '2026 SD/. C. DEEPIKA REGTSTRAR SSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ALISHE TTY NARAYANA SRI JUSTICE LAXMI to the HON'BLE One fair copy p's Kind Pe rusal) Lotothi t t:o-r. -Hit To Justice and companv Union or rndia, Ministry or Law, f . ilj,1,&? 'r? lretary, court Library' High Association Advocates . tfl3'3;)3[l-? i[iu"n'"' at the state or relansana Hish court ror GENERAL, , ?
*'S33',; #iiliB'8orr Advocate [oPUc] KrsHoRE KovvuRr BIl%t* J8,u'IJ't"*o " o. f*o CD CoPies SA TKS W d ffi' ilEwl@' $ ={ffi HIGH COURT DATED:1910212026 Rr l4 ( o a a . J r-) l . ll ? t 'r . ,,t ,/ * i)l i:Ftl :: ---" - ORDER WP. No. 3709 of 2026 DISMISSING THE W. P WITHOUT COSTS. s. t v )L
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.