The High Court · 2025

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER (Petitioner in WP No.7132 ot 2023 on tlgr file of High Court) AND 1 2 3 4 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Rep by its Qhairman & Managing Director, Near Nilopher Hospital, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. The General Manager, RG.lll, The Singareni Collieries Cpmpany Ltd, Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3, Peddapally District. The Deputy General Manager (Purchase), The Singareni Collieries Company L{d, Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3, Ped(apally District. The S.O. to General Manager, The Singareni Collierles Qompany Ltd, Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3, Peddapally District.

6. The Senior Section Officer, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Centenary Colony, Rarlagundam Area 3, Peddapally District.

6. lt{/s Sqeeja lnfra, HNo.6-3-82lA,Powet l-louse Colony, Gpdavarikhanni, Ramagundam, Peddapally District ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the order daled 26-04-2024 in W.P. No.7132 ot 2023 and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to 5 grant tender to the Petitioner by setting aside the impugned notice dated 25-02-2023 issued by the Respondent No.2. counsel for the Appeilant: Ms. sAMHTTHA DEVARA REpRESENTTNG FoR SRI P. RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: SRI p. SRI HARSHA REDDY (sc FoR S|NGARENt COLLTERTES CO LTD) Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI D. RADHA KRISHNA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CIIIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE R.ENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAI, NO. 234 of 2o25 JUDG MENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Suiog Paul): Ms. Samhitha Devara, learned counsel represents Sri P' Ramesh babu, Iearned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner; Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, for respondent Nos'1 to 5 and Sri D' Radha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No'6' The appellant/writ petitioner has called in question the 2. legality, validity and propriety of notice dated 25 'Q2 '2023 rn t}:re Writ Petition. For providing outsourcing services of 71 Security Guards, a NIT was issued and the appellant, respondent No'6 and other persons/hrms submitted their respective bids' By impugned noticedated25.02.2023inW.P.No.7132.of2023,theappellantwas held to be ineligible by giving a finding that "technically not acceptable". Assailing the notice and this finding' the writ petition was frled mainly with two-fold submissions' Firstlg; even though the appellant submitted all necessary details about experience and eligrbifiry to show that it was eligible, declaring it as "technically not acceptable" is incorrect. Secondlg, for the reasons stated in the writ petition and supported documents, respondent No'6 was ineligible ' s 2

3. Learned counsel'for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition but <lid not s;pecifically deal with the appellant's contention and docurnents which show that (i) the appeilant was eligible and (ii) respondent No'6 was ineligible. By treating the stand of Singareni Collieries Compary Limited as gospel truth, in paragraph No.13 of the impugned order dated 26.04.21024, the learned Single Judge opined that the appellant has not fulfrlled the eligibility criteriie There was no independent discussion about the appellant's pleadings, documents and arguments which were advance<l to show that the appellant was indeed eligible. Similarly, there is no iota of frnding in relation to eligibility of respondent No.6.

5. Learned counsel for the other side supported the impugned We have heard learned counsel for the pzLrties at length We hnd substance in the argument of learned <:ounsel for

6. the appellant that the appellant devoted number of paragraphs in the writ alfidavit and filed documents to show that (i) thr: appellant was eligible and (ii) respondent No.6 was ineligible' 7 . A plain reading of the impugned order of learned Single Judge shor.r's that ' the learned Single has reproducr:d various judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with the principles on the 3 l envil of which contract matters are to be tested and then reached to the following conclusion : g '13 In the instant case ,as per the coun ter-a-ffrdavit areni Collieries Comnan Limited frled hv S criteria etitioner has not fulfi[ed the e1 bili hence, the Apolication of the 6th responde nt, who is next to it. was considere d ald accepted In view of the acLion of cannot be said that the same Res ondents 4 and 5 as unlawful and arbitrarv '|.his Court is therefore, not inclined to entertaln the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed." t I (emphasis suPPlied) A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraph of the B. impugned order shows that the statement of Singareni coiiieries Company Limited that the appellant was not fulhlling the eligibility criteria has been accepted by the learned Single Judge' No reasons were assigned as to why the appellant's stand that it was eligible was not acceptable. Likewise, there is no discussion about the allegation of ineligibility against respondent No'6' g. Thus, in this backdrop, we deem it proper to set aside the irnpugned order of the learned Single Judge d'ated 26'04'2024 and restore W.P.No.7132 of 2023 to its original number with request to the learned Single Judge to rehear the parties and decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within thirty days' because' learned counsel for the parties informed us that the contract is coming to an end within ten months' The Registry shall list the 4 Writ Petition before the appropriate Bench on 26.03..1025. The interim order passed by the learned Single .Iudge in the Writ Petition will not revive pursuant to this judgment..

10. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of without expressing aly opinion on merits of the case. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closecl. SD/-I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FFICER

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Near Nilopher Hospital, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

2. The General Manager, RG.lll, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3, Peddapally District

3. The Deputy General Manager (Purchase), The Singareqf Collieries Company Ltd, Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3, Peddapally District. 4. The S.O. to General Manager, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3, Peddapally District Colony, Ramagundam Area 3, Peddapally District.

5. The Senior Section Officer, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Centenary 6. The S.O. Writ (Non-service) Sectlon 7. The S.O Posting Section 8. One CC to SRI P. RAMESH BABU, Advocate [OPQC] 9 One gC to SRI D. RADHA KRlSHrun, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One QQ to SRI P SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FoR SINGARENI COLLIERIES To, co LTD) toPucl

11. Tryo CD Copies BN \ I HIGH COURT DATED:1010312025 i 6 t. 'S ,',,i ; t r. 12r'lAH M I 5 O o + r ;/ 'ir ... . JUDGMENT WA.No.238 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS b\a5 1?