High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary R and B Department Secretariat, Hyderabad The Executive Engineer, Roads and Building, Assembly Building Division, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad, Telangana State The Superintendent Engineer, Roads and Building, Head Quarters Circle, Hyderabad, Telangana State M/s Gokul Supplying Co, H.No.7-1-301/302, Gokul Nilayam, Maruthi Veedhi, Secunderabad Rep by its Proprietor Mr. P.N. Shyam ...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 Writ, Order or Direction, or any other appropriate Order one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of Respondents No.2 and 3 allowing the Respondent No.4 to participate in the tender notification work issued by the Respondents No.1 to 3 for making sitting arrangement and barricading in Government programmes without having any experience certificate issued by the official Respondents and not having any certificate acknowledged, attested by the Respondents No.1 to 3 in favour of Respondent No.4 which is mandatory as per the Tender notification and its guidelines as illegal, arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 not to entertain the Respondent No.4 in tender process as he is not 7 having any experience certificate issued by the Respondents No.l to 3 and also stop all his payments lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 18-08-2023 and not to entertain the, Respondent No.4 in tender . process as he is not having any experience certificate issued by the Respondents No.1 to 3 and also stop all his payments, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. A. K. MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P. RAJ KIRAN The Court made the following: ORDER 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 23393 OF 2o23 ORDER: The main grievance of petitioner is that Respondents 2 and 3 having been allowing the 4ft respondent to participate in the tender notification work ie. making sitting arrangements and barricading in government progr€rmmes without having any experience certificate issued by the oflicial respondents.

2. Petitioner claims to be a technically-qualified person, discharging works like supplying material, sitting and barricading arrangements pursuant to the tender issued by the 2"d respondent. It is his case that 4e respondent is not the technically-qualified person, despite the same, he has been awarded works. He complains that oflicial respondents are not following the guidelines prepared by them, sometimes, have been issuing tender notification just simply giving work order to the 4th respondent on nomination basis. According to petitioner, as per the technical bid, a person, who is having experience in similar works and also having a certifrcate issued by the Executive Engineer, R&B, as per the tender norms in 2 Clasue No.4, it is mandatory that bidder should have satisfactorily completed similar works as prime contractor in the same name and st5rle for any one year and also bidder shall submit certihcate issued by the Executive Oflicer, R&B. It is also stated that as per the tender schedule item No. 1O, similar experience last five years for barricading but the 4th respondent, though does not have any experience certificate, was allotted work by the 2nd respondent. It is stated, h 2022, on integration day, the offi'cial respondents allotted work to the 4th respondent worth Rs.97.4 lacs on nomination basis, whereas as per the registration, he is entitled to works of only Rs. 50 lacs ald that condition was waived by the official respondents to help the 4t respondent. Therefore, petitioner is stated to have submitted representation dated 1O.O8.2O23 to the official respondents to cancel all the past tender works of the 4ft respondent and disqualiff them to participate in future tenders as they do not have any experience certificate, but in vain. Further, on 77.O9-2023, government was celebrating integration day for which, the 4th respondent was awarded works without having any experience certificate which is mandatory and the same has to be issued only by the R&B I l Department and the certilicate which the 46 respondent is holding is not proper and he is not eligible to participate in any tendernotificationandalsonotetigibletoparticipateinany work; knowing fully well the official respondents have been entertaining the 4tr' respondent to participate in the tender process. Hence, the Writ Petition' The Executive Engineer (R&B) in his counter stated 3. that as per Clause 6(h) of tender conditions' the work is of very important and essential to ensure best quality of workmanship' bidder should have satisfactorily compieted similar works of valuenotlessthanRs.S.TglacsasaprimeContractorinthe s€une natne and style in any one year during the financial years from 20 17- 18 to 2O2l-22; bidder should submit certifrcates issued by the Executive Engineer concerned and countersigned by the Superintending Engineer showing work-wise/year-wise value of work done and date of completion' Hence' it is mandatory that certificate should be issued only by the Executive Engineer of R&B Department' the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer ofany department and countersigned by the Superintending Engineer concerned would be considered' Petitioner is wrongly interpreting the said clause as per his I 4 convenience and in the tender conditions, it is nowhere mentioned that certificate should be issued by the Executive I Engineer ol R&B Department. . It is stated, for Independence Day Celebrations, 2022, for the work of providing water proof pandal, pre- fabricated structural steel stage, seating arrangements arrd other arraignments, tenders were invited through e-procurement platform, in response, four bidders including petitioner and the 4m respondent participated; tender evaluatiQn was done based on the eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender document and the work was awarded to the 4ft respondent being the lowest bidder. For the wrok of providing barricading with MS grill and other arrangements, tender was awarded to M/s Ashoka Engineering Works and petitioner has not participated in the tender. According to this respondent, the 4ff respondent placed the experience certificate and the sarne was uploaded towards similar work experience. The certiFrcate was accepted since work was executed in Kosgi Municipality and the Commissioner, who is the highest authority of the Municipality issued corticated. In view of the same, the contention of petitioner that the 4ft respondent is not 5 technically-qualified is not correct as the experience certificate submitted by them are found to be satisfactory and meeting the eligibility criteria and the certifrcates produced by the 4tt' respondent were also confrrmed by the issuing authorities. It is stated, petitioner was also awarded many works earlier when they were found to be technically-qualihed and stood the l"t lowest. It is clarified that the arrangements for state functions will be taken up in a very short notice and hence, there witl not be sufhcient time for inviting tenders, as such those works would be taken up on nomilation basis duly verilring the credentia-ls of the agency. As alleged by the petitioner, work worth Rs.97-50 lacs was awarded to the 4ft respondent on nomination basis is not correct; in fact, the work for arrangements for Telangana National Integration Day on 17 .Og .2022 was initially allotted for Rs.5O lacs only to make arrangements for 20000 persons; during the course of execution, as per the instructions of the government, the scope of work as increased to provide arrangements for 500OO persons and changing the agency in the mid of execution was not possible as the was a time bound one. The District Collector, l 6 Hyderabad uide proceedings dated 02.11 .2022 ratilied the action taken by this department for having taken up the work through the 46 respondent on nomination basis. This respondent states that the deparlment will never show any bias towards anv bidder and allotment of work would be done in a tair and t.rrr"pr....rt manner, hence, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4 The 4tt respondent a-lso flled the counter-affidavit denying the averments made by petitioner.

5. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukeed, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings on behalf of ofhcial respondents ald Sri P. Raj Kiran, iearned counsel on behalf of the 4ft respondent. 6 No doubt, this Court being the guardial of fundamenta-l rights, is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. At the same time, it is a mater to be remembered that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a host of decisions, had cautioned time ald agaio that courts stnuld exercise a lot of restraint uhile exerci,sing their pou)ers of judicial reuieut in contractuol or commercial matters. lrr 7 view of the same, this Court is loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out 7 . In the instant case, petitioner alleges that the 4tt' resplendent was showered favors though it is not technically- qualified ald not produced the certificates which do not meet , I the requirements mandated in the tender notification, for which, the 4th respondent, in the counter-affidavit, as noted supra, has been responded in clear and categorical terms. Further, baSed on the written instructions received from the Executive Engineer (R&B), learned Assistant Government Pleader on 24-08.2023, submitted that cause in the Writ Petition does not survive as the tender was finaJized. in favour of the 4th respondent by following the procedures and work was awarded to them being the lowest bidder; work was completed satisfactorily. In view of the same and also in view of the law laid down by the Hontrle Apex Court, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. I 8 The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No 8

9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// sD/- p.ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA NT REGISTRAR \N-- AS CTION OFFICER Hyderabad, Telangana State '1. The Principal Sgcretary R_and B Department Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad 2. The. Executive Engineer, Roads and Buitding, Assembly'Buildinei DirLion, _ Basheerabagh, Hyderabad, Telangana Stat6 3. The Superintendent Eng_ineer, Ro5ds and Building, Head euarters Circle, 4. One CC to SRt. M. A. K. MUKHEED, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to GP FOR ROADS BUILD|NGS ,High Court'for the State of 6. One CC to SRl. P. RAJ KRIAN, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Iwo CD Cop,gg Telangana at Hyderabad [OUI] \ To, BM ,5' .GJP t\,/_[u] -.t\ HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 ORDER WP.No.23393 of 2023 ." r . ;J,a1 Yt I )il 10r{AR M * o63pAT * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS uL I I I I