The High Court · 2025

Treebo Trend Srico Hotel, Lane No 1?, t\tLA Colony Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500034 Rep by its Managing Director. .....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT .:--,1;i. &&ii.rx;i ,t {-ri:ti} !&klta ) l.A.NO:3 OF 202s Petition Under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstilnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders dated dated 28'10'2024 passed lry the Learned Single Judge in W.P No.21689 ot 2024. Counsel for Appellants : SRI T.RAJINIKANTH REDDY' ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRt TARUN G' REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRI B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following JUDGMENT : - i I I i I I I ! i I ) THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.62 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renukc Yara) Heard Sri T.Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Sri Tarun G.Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record

2. This is an intra-court appeal frled by the appellants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 aggrieved by the order dated 2a.1O.2O24 passed in W.P.No.21689 of 2024 by the lea-rned Single Judge of this Court declaring the action of the appellants/respondent Nos.l and 2 in rejecting the tender bid of the respondents/writ petitioners in respect of tender No.TGMDC/ S&M / DSLT/JB I 2024 / 225, dated I 4.06.2O24 for de-siltation ot 15,52,923 MT of sand from Beglwl2O24l1 sand reach at Jayashankar Bhupalpallv District as illegal for not assigning reasons, the award of tender No.TGMDC/S&M/DSLT/JB 12024 1225, dated 14.06.2024 in favour of respondent No.3 has been set aside and the writ appellants are directed to cali for fresh bids in respect of tender No.TGMDC/ S&M/ DSLT/ JB I 2024 I 225, dated 7 4.O6.2024.

3. The background facts of the case are that the writ appellant No.2 $oated tender No.TGMDC/S&M/DSLT/JB I 2024 / 225, dated ) 2 14 .06.2024 for rle siltation of 15,52,923 MT of sand from Beglw 12024/ 1 sand reach at Jayashankar Bhupalpallr' District and that the said tenrl,:r t'as floated for a contract value of apr'roximately Rs.15,06,33.531,' . Respondent No'1 represented by I espondent No.2 and responrlent No.3 participated in the bid Th e bid was awarde<l n fa\r()llr of respondent No'3 as per the au-ard dated 1.g .O7 .2024. The bid submitted by responden t No t has been information provided in the Telangana rejected as Per the e-procuremcnt Portal.

4. The rcjectior of their bid is challenged by respondenr' Nos' 1 and 2 on the premist: that the writ appeliants did not conducl the tender process ar-rcl au'rfding of the tender in fair and transparont manner by referring to :he legai ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rn Dhartnapal Satgapal Limited a' Deputg Comrnissioner oJ Central Excise, Gauhati ond othersl, PKF Sridhar and Santhano'm 7t- Airports Econotnic Regulatory Authoritg of India (WP(g No.72385 of 2O21), Suadeshi Cotton Mills o. tlnion of India2 qnd Puftiab state Pouer c'orporation Limited and. another a. EMTA Coal I'imited and others3 ' Respondent Nos.l and 2 prrmarllity questioned the acr.ion of writ appellants in rejecting the tender without assigning r:asons and '1zors1s scc ste 'atR tggt scc gts ' (2072)ncc r , ) without giving them hearing for giving clarification on their Work Done Certificate. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India holding that decision making process adopted by the writ appellants is contrary to principles , of natural justice and lacking in transparency in the tender process. It is held that no reason is assigned for rejecting respondent No.1's bid as failing to have fulfrlled clause 3.2 tender conditions. In the light of the respondent No.l's specific case that it fulfilled the requirement under clause 3.2 of the tender conditions. It is held that as per the entry made in e-procurement web portal on 79.A7.2024, the writ appellants have clearly obserwed that respondent No.l has fulfilled the eligibiiity criteria referring to the contents of Remarks column which are extracted and produced below: Remarks Qualihed as pcr Eti bili Criteria of Tcnder DocumenLs

5. Further, the learned Single Judge held that the writ appellants have failed to give an opportunity to respondent No.1 to give ' ',! clarification in case of any ambiguity about the contents of the Work Done Certihcate. Lastly, the learned Single Judge also referred to the writ appellants issuing Letter of Intent to respondent No.3 on 1O.O7.2024 and the award of tender to respondent No.3 took place on \ \ 4 lg.OT.2024.Thr,Ls,thervritpetition'"l'asallowedleaclingrofilingof the writ appeal

6. The learnecl -\dclitional Advocate Genera] would submit that the Government foll r',ved correct procedure as spelled out in the procurement matruaf and the tender notihcation' It is errrphasized that respondent I',1o.1 failed to meet the tender condition No.3.2, which reads as Ibllorvs: "Thc bidrl,:r ;lrall havc satisfactorlly completed aL least one lvork of Mining/Civill lr:-ir1;rtion ',r'ork of vaiue n6t lcss than Rs t2,0-5,06 825 / {Rupces Trvclve cror.e Fir.c I rkh six thousand Eight Hund.ed and T$,enLy FiYe only) (80')i, of 1,2111q 6f qork] 1'1.'6lvirtg excavaticn and rcmoval any Earth/mincla1 lncluding sand rn SraLe/(lenlral Government Undert€kings during the lasL lhrec (:l) years'" In this reli.Ircl referring to the Work Done Certifrcates ulde 7. Ref.No.KGM/.lVF: OC IIl2023l33acl608, dated 12116'O5 2023 and Ref.No.KGM/.lV'Fl OC-IIl2023l338Dl609, dated 121 6'O52023 submitted bv t'espondent No. 1, it is argred that said certificates clearl1, demonstrr,r.te that respondent No. 1 did not cornplete the contract br,rt r-ath,:r the work is still in progress in "Presetrt status of work" column. In that context, it is argued that any bidder has to produce 8. certificate shorvr rLg satisfactorily completed work of vahre not less than Rs. 12.05,O5,8251- during the last three years of th': bid. It is arguqd that amorrg 12 technical qualilted bidders, B u'ere rejected for r7 I t l 5 not complying tender clause 3.2 and the same was informed through e-procurement website ot 08.07.2024. Respondent No. 1 is one among B bidders whose tender was rejected for failing to meet the criteria. The learned Additional Advocate General argued that the Hon'ble Supreme court in various judgments herd that in contractual matters the scope of judicial review or interference under Article 226 of constitution of India is available in exceptional circumstances, such as, on account of mala fi.des, arbttrariness and illegalities. Whereas, in the instant case, no specific instance of malice is made out. Only because respondent No.1 failed to satisfy the condition under clause 3.2 of tender condition its bid was rejected which is not arbitrary. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Agmatel Indio- priuate Limited. v. Resourys Telecom and other#, wherein it is held that "The above mentioned statements of law make it amply clear that the author of thc tender documcnt is taken to be the trest pcrson Lo undcrstand and appreciatc its requircments; ard if its interpretatron is manifcstly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserving lhe purchase of thc tender, the Court would prefcr to keep restraint. Further to that, the Lechnical evaluade6 qy comparison by thc Court is impermissible; and even if the interpretation given to the tcnder document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptablc to the constitutional court, that, by itself, would not be q 1sa5sn for inlerfering with the interpretation given.'

9. The contention of respondent . No. I about giving opportunitSr under clause 21 to provide clarihcation with respect to Work Done o lzoztls scc zaz 6 Certificate,itisarquedthattheemployercanseekc.larificar-ionatits discretion. when tl-re Work Done Certifrcate itself clearly reflected that respondent No.1 did not complete the work' there is rro 11eed to seek any ciarrllcatron Lastly, it is argued that the learned Single Judge erred in obsen'ing that the letter of inte-nt dated lt) 07 '2024 was issued in favo.rr of respondent No.2 and the same is c)ntrary to the information orl the web site which shows tender u'as arvarded on 1g.O7.2024. Accorcling to the learned Add'itionai Advocatr: General' after the bids rvert: submitted by prospective bidders' the bids were evaluated bi' th e Teuder Evaluati'on Committce on 08 'C7 '2024 to ascertain ther conditions stipulated an<l successftll bidder ri'as issued the letter rrf rr-rtent on 1O.O7.2024 and said information u'as; uploaded on 19.O7 .20'24. IrL the entire process, there is no mala Jidr: or lack of transparencv. -earned Additionai Advocate General referred to judgment ir.r W /i Nos 116 and 117 of 2025, daled 3'O2'2O25 wherein it u'as trt:ld that: r\ car. ul leading of Clausc I7.O reproduce'J hcreinabove sh'ws thal il "16- in his biddcr has b(.er rirnnecl bv any other body and has disclosed this fact cl€:rrly hid as.r lulc ,ll rhumb, SCCL management will not disqutLlily him' lhc SCCL management rcs, rves righl to takc appropri'rte decision in such everlt lality' The language elllpl,li e.1 jn the aforesaid clause sho'n's that it enablcs the SCCL management l() Larke .rn appropriarlc decisron rn such cascs whe'e dil closure of banning is thele. "he decision taken by SCCL management in the prcsen casc is lo disqualify the pclilionel At this stage, we are not inclined to put thc cLocl: back and direct thc Singnrni Collieries Company Limited to undertakc lhe cntiL-c exercrse afresh. The Singrrrenr Collicries Company Limited is serving prLbtic inter€ st' For the rlmooLh productr,,rL ancl running of Singareni Collieries Compan]'Limited suppl]' of bu\k explosive Ls csscrrtiai. Any Interference by us at this juncture, will l amper the activity ol rhe rrrrlustry and consequently will have an advet-se impnct on public i l l I I i l l l I l I I 't {t 7 interest. Thus, in the pccular Iacts of thegc cascs, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter-. More-so, after passing of impugned order, thrrd party rights are created and contracts have been granied to nine (9) contractors and they are not parties before us."

10. On the basis of above judgment, it is argued that this Court in similar cases on earlier occasions declined to interfere with the decision made by the Government while awa,rding tenders. 1 1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 ald 2 argued that it has fulfilled condition under clause 3.2 of tender conditions and therefore it was found to have qualified as per the entry in web portal dated 19.o7.2024. It is argued that the learnecr single Judge had assessed the tender process adopted by. the .writ appellants in proper perspective with respect to meeting the clause 3.2 of tender conditions, not providing opportunity under tender clause 2I for giving clarihcation about the work Done certirrcates and rejecting the tender without assigning reasons. In that regard, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 referred to judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshi Reddg, rep. bg its paftner Shri Kasturt Lal and others a. $;tg;te bf Jammu and. Kahsmir and. anothef, wherein it is held that "15.........Where the government is deahng with the public, whether by way of givrng jobs or entenng into contracts or granting other forq5 of largess_ the Governrncnt cannot act arbitrarily at its, swect will and, like a private individual, deal wifh any perlon_ir pleases. but its action must be io conformity witi some standard or norm \,&iT is not arbitrary, irrational or i.relevant. The governmental action must not be ' 1rsao1+ scc r -t l i i I I t l i'l arbltrary or cill)rici ) 'is, but must be based on solne principle which mecis t le Lest ol reason and lelevanirl

12. Learned cotrnsel for the respondents vehementlY argued that no reasons are assigned for rejecting its bid and thereby there is violation of princioles of natural justice ln that context' learned counsel for the respondents referred to judgment of ttre Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dhannapal's case (1 supra) and relevant portion is extractr:d and produced below: ., "The princillles oI n:ltu raL .justicc dcvelopecl over a penod ol time and *'hicl is still in vogLie aDcl valicl c.,rrD ioday u'cre: (4 rule againsl bias, ie nemtr iuder ill <ausa sua; and (ii) opporlu ri1 oI bcir-tg heard to thc conccrncd party' i'e' audi altera'r-r partem' Thesc are knr,,urt r.r prrnciples oI naL'lral Justice To thesc principlcs a thlr t principle is aclclccl, rrhrrh t; ol reccnt ofigin. It ls dut-v to give teasons in supporL ci decision' namcly, passing i:i t I casoned order'

13. Analvs is bv the Court: A perr.rsal ol the lecord and the arguments of both t he counsel show that the cl t tx of the dispute is rvith rcspect to rvher-her or not met the criteria Llnder clause 3.2 of tender respondent No. I conditions, lvhether the writ appellants acted u'ith mala iides in r,ot providing an opl)ortunity to respondent No' 1 to give r:larification about its Worl< Done Certificate and lastiy u'hether the writ appellants <1id n'lt girre a reasoned order for rejection of bi<t submitted by respondent No.1 and therebY the tender process lacks transparencv I I ) a 9

14. First and foremost tender undsr clause 3.2 makes it mandatory for the bidders to submit Work Done Certificate showing satisfactory completion of at least one work of mininglciv /irrigation of value not less than Rs. 12,05,06,g25l- (gOo/o of value of work) involving excavation and removal any earth/mineral incruding sa,d in State/ central Government Undertakings during the rast three years. The aforementioned conditioh requires that the bidder shall complete at least one work of required monitory value, complete satisfactorily that too within last three years of the date of the bid. While so, the Work Done CertificateS submitted by respondent No. 1 show that the said company has taken up the work of Singareni collieries through work order No.760ooo9282, dated 2r.ro.2022 and has completed certain work upto March 2023 and the status of the work is "work in progress". Similariy, respondent No.1 has taken up another work from Singareni Collieries Company Limited and the certificate shows that the work is stirl in progress. The contents of the work Done certihcates submitted by respondent No. 1 failed to meet two criterias, i.e. completion of work and completion of work satisfactorily. only when the entire work is completed that too to the satisfaction of the employer, it can be said that respondent No.1 has successfully fulfriled the criteria under clause 3.2 of tender condithns and not otherwise. The contents of the Work Done Certifrcate speak for themselves and cannot be given aly other ) 10 o interpretation. 'flre respondents would contend that the contracts awarded are for ar periocl of 11 months and 17 months re'spectively and each component of r,l'ork done is a separate piece u'orll which is to be treated as c ompleted satisfactorily' Such interpretal ion of the contents of the Work Done Certificates is not acceptatrle-

15. Coming to the aspect of seeking clarifrcation from the' bidder as per clause 2 t of tender conditions, said tender condition itr;elf ciearly showsthatthec.larificationmaybesoughtatthediscrelionofthe employer. In cas,::, the empioyer after perusing the contents Work Done Certificate 1as come to the conclusion that the g'orli is still in progress and thtrl has not been completed, no fault ctrrr be found with the emplovr:r'. A conjoint reading of clause 3'2 ar-rcl 21 of the tencler conditiotr,s together $rith the contents of \['ork Done Certificates d.oes not make out a positive case in favour of respondent No.1.

16. Coming to l.he contention of respondent Nos l anrl 2 that as per clause 22'|, Lrre eligibility criteria is as per definition I,].B clause 3 and only when tl-re eligibility criteria' is met, the further evaluation takes place. To rlscertain the case of respondent Nos' 1 :rnd 2' said entry in the v'eb portal is Produced belou': I I l { I a 11 Technical parameters list: Para As per Operat Dacc Type Min Ma-\ Text 000

0.oo FulIlI Remarks Evaluation Qualified as per Eli8ibiliry Criteria oI Tende. Clause 3.2 of Tender condiLions fulfilled

17. A reference is made to the contents of above award of tender d,ated 79.07.2024 to the "Remarks,, column wherein it is entered as "qualifred as per eligibility criteria of tender.documents,,. This entry in the Remarks column is rnis-interpreted by respondent No.1 to mean that respondent No.t has met the eligibility criteria as per 3.2. To the contrary, the meaning of the contents of "Remarks,, column can be construed as that respondent No.1 qualified for further evaluation of the bid as it has mer the eligibility criteria by frling all the required tender documents including the Work Done Certificate. The title of the column is 'Remarks,,. Remarks with respect to whether the bidders have hled arl the documents or not. onry such bidders who have frled all the documents are eligible for evaluation of their bids ald further steps.

18. The next column is titled ,,evaluation comments,, wherein it is clearly mentioned as "clause 3.2 conditions not furfi[ed,,. Therefore, a close scrutiny of the contents of "Remar.ks', column and the contents of "evaluation comments" column shows that the contents of the Remarks column are meant for noting down the erigibility of a -".?.,-t t) ( bid.der prima Jacte on account to filing of required documetLts as per tender notihcatior-t and not on the basis of contents of said documents. On11' rltter the documents filed for the evaluat ion of the bid are in order, ]'he contents are exdmined ancl an eva iuation is made as to the elig,ibility of the birlders and therebv respondent No' 1 has been founcl t.c le lacking to have met the conditions unrler clause 3.2. However. re's;pondent No' 1 is mis interpreting the crrntents of "Remarks" column and the "evaluation comments" column and the same has been ert oneously relied upon by the learned SirLgle Judge while passing the impugned order'

19. Coming to r.he aspect of observing principles of uat u -al iustice' about passing a reasoned order while rejecting an application' a reasoned ordel s' passed when there is an adjudication process, where there are rlro or more rival contestants' each pers(rn is heard and al-t evaluatio n is made of the rival contentions anrl reasoned orcler is passed. In the instalt case' the entire tender p-ocess took place online wherein the bids are submitted online and the result also has been declared online. A reason for rejection is the criteria for meeting the l-equirements of principles of natural jtrstice' The said reasonecl or,ler could be one word, one line or a pe Lragraph or more. In the ilrstant case, the ernployer has given the reason for rejectingbid.oirespondentNo.lbystatingthatrespondentNo.l 13 failed to meet the conditions of clause 3.2 of tender conditions. The said reason when written in one line or in an elaborate manner would convey the same meaning. Thus, there is no ground to accuse the writ appellants of not observing the principles of natural justice.

20. Lastly, mala f.d-es are attributed to the writ appellants on the basis of issuance of retter of intent dated 1o.o7.2o24 whire .^e information was made available by the writ appellants on e- procurement website indicated that respondent No.3 was declared the successfut bidder and awarded the tender only on lg.OZ.2024. In this regard, it is seen that the said aregation was not made by respondent No' 1 in the writ petition but was raised only at the time of filing a rejoinder to the counter frled by respondent No.3.

27. In this regard, as per judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Arti Sapnr a. State oJ Jammu qnd. Kashmir6, the allegations made for the first time in the rejoinder alhdavit do not give scope for reasonable opportunity to the respondents to give reply and therefore cannot form basis for a finding in favour of the petitiirner. Likewise in the matter of Ashok Lanka u. Rfshi DikshitT, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that when the allegations are made in the rejoinder, when no new plea can be permitted in the rejoinder, without the leave of the court, such allegations cannot be relied u (rssr)zscc aea 'lzooolsscc so \1 t a\il upon. While legal precedents do not support respondent No 1's allegations made n the rejoinder for the hrst time attribu ring mola fides, we are of tlrr: considered opinion that the contents c'f the web portal dated lg.O7 2A24 are also mis-interpreted on accorlnt of the fact that the ten,ler evaluatron process has been comPleted bY issued to the ';uccessful O8.O7.2O24 and tl-re letter of intent was bidder on lO.O7 2024 and said information was uploaded in the least, after thr' bids are website on 79 .t)7 -2024. Last but not evaluated, thc eligible bidder has been selected b1- r,r'ay o lottery in the presence of ali the bitlders' 'fhe learned Adclitional Advocate in the General pointe c1 o ut tl-rat even rcgpondent No' 1 particip€Ltcd lottery process 1L,.tt took place on lO'O7 '2024 ancl therefore ' no mala fides can be attrirluted to reference Nos' 1 and 2' as the enl ire process has been conduct,:cl in transparent manner as per the tcnrler process contemplatecl in the tender conditions as well as notificatLon When the successful brclder is selected through the process of d rawing lots in the presence of all the eligible bidders ' r:o rnala fir le's can be attributed to the rvrit appellants in conducting the tender process in fair and transPa't:nt manner'

22. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered < 'plnion that the learned Sir-rg1e Judge erred in reading the contents of the Work Dong Certificate s'. the e-procurement award dater.l 19 0 /'2 O24 and -t' 15 the factum of issuance of letter of intent dated 10.07. 2024 a:nd publishing said information on lg.O7 .2024 in the e_procurement online website and therefore the said impugned of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

23. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed settmg aside the order dated 28.10.2O24 in W.p.No.21689 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. There shall be no order as to costs. Misceilaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shail stand closed \ To //TRUE COPYII SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Authorized Signatory, tVr Lanki Reddy Gopi Krishna, GKR lnfracon lndia Private Limited, Having office at Plot No 43Nlll, H No 82293/82iJ lll/43/N, Opp Jubilee Hills, Public School Road No 71 , Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500033. 2. The Managing Director, Sirco Projects Private Limited, 4th floor PLOT NO 178lA,L.ane No 7, above Treebo Trend Srico Hotel, Lane No 12, MLA Colony Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500034.

3. Two CC's to Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI TARUN G. REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 6. One CC to SRI T.RAJINIKANTH REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SA LS (1. s ( q J C ,J ! iA1. \ \-\E1 2 5 APfl ?[25 t .ogsFa i )(( l/\ 7. 6) l HIGH COURT DATED:27 10312025 JUDGMENT WA.No.62 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. 4a o v\ i l, )