Kummari Sunitha v. violative of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of

Counsel for ther Petitioner: SRI C. RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the, Respondents No: SRI A. ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC The Court madr: the following: ORDER /: Q x'- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA PETITION OF o,3..L2.20/25 Between: Kummari Sunitha And .. Petitioner Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyclerabad & another ..ResPondents ORDER: Petitioner challenges the . action of the )ttc respondent under proceedings dated 22.05.2025, by rvhich, tender notilication dated t9.OT .2024 was cancelled arid petitioner was directed to take refi:nd of EMD. She requests thai respondents be directed to grant license in her favour for Stall No. 29 in MGBS, HYderabad. ,1

1. 1. Petitioner states that she submitted her tender oifering a monthiy licence fee of Rs. 2,61,00O/-. The Corporation accepted her tender as the highest bidder. However, the license r.vas not :ssued because the previotrs licensee filed Writ Petition No. 2Og,+8 of 2024 challenging the tender notification and seeking extension of his licence period. Due to this, the Corporation kept her case pending. She states that although the Corporation had decided to grant her licence, the interim order obtained in Writ Petition IYo. 20948 of 2024 caused the Corporation to ask her to '*'att for the disposal of that Writ Petition. The Corporation retained her earnest money deposit of Rs. IO,CO,OOO/- for one -vea,:, stating that licence would be issueci after Writ Petition iivas dismissed. Trusting this assuran(:e, she waited for the outcome of the said Writ Petition.

1.2. Petitioner states that despite keeping her wait for an year, the 2nd respondent suddenly issued the impugned letter informing that Corporation had cancelled the tender notificatjon d.ated t9.O7.2O24 because the third part5r's Writ Petition 'was still pending and asked her to take refund of EMD. She contends that this canceilation, after acceptance of her tender and after keeping her Ei\{D fbr an year, is arbitrary and a 1 _1 unjust. She states that Corporation, having retained her EMD and promised to issue the licence, is estopped from cancelling the tender without any valid reason. Sudden cancellation after a year, without awaiting the disposal of the pending Writ Petition, is unjustified.

1.3. Petitioner further states that she later came to know that writ Petition No. 20948 0f 2024 was withdrawn on 26.06.2025. After its dismissal, she approached the 2nd respondent, furnished the copy of the order and requested issuance of licence as there was no legal hurdle, however, the

2.d respondent refused the same without justification. She then submitted the request letter dated 28.06.2025 to the Managing Director of the Corporation, but received no response. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. Petitioner has taken out .I-A.No. 2 of 2025 to implead the'Regional Manager, R.R. Region, MGBS, Hyderabad as Respondent No.3, I.A.No. 3 of 2025 to permit petitioner to amend the prayer, in addition to the present prayer ie. to declare the fresh notification dated t8.O8.2O25 issued by the Regional Manager insofar as it relates to stall No. 29 in MGBS, 4 HyderabeLd as illegal and I.A.No. 4 of 2025 to suspend the operation of tender notification dated 18.08.2025.

3. Respondent Corporation filed counter-affidavits to all these Applications, on similar lines. It is stated, petitioner has no locus whatsoever to challenge the subsequent tender notificatirrn dated 18.08.2025 as she has no vested right created in her favour', in respect of Stall No. 29; by virtue of being the first or the second highest bidder. Even assuming that petitionei- can challenge the fresh tender notification , the same u,ould stem from an entireiy new- cause, thereby precluding petitione:: from agitating it in the present Writ Petition.

3.1. It is stated, since the r:ender notification dated D.A7.2024 was cancelied, petitioner has no right to challenge the subsequent teuder process in which she has not participated. This Court as v.rell as the Hon'lcle Apex Court has time and again held that unless the tender process is found to be a-rbitrary or filled with irregularities, the same cannot be challengt:d. it is stated, in the notilication dated rc.OA.ZOZS, there ar(: no mala fides on the part of Corporation, hence, the same cannot be interfered by this Court. It is also stated that it is settled legal principle that solely by virtue of being the highest z' r- 5 bidder or depositing any EMD amount, no vested right is created in favour of a bidder. In view of the same, the Applications are liable to be dismissed.

4. To the main Writ Petition, the Corporation filed counter stating that tender process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner and that unless any arbitrary, ilIegal or high-handed action is sho',r,,n, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Petitioner seeks a positive mandamus for grant of licence in respect of Stall No. 29, but such direction cannot be issued once the tender notification itself stands cancelled. It is further stated that the relief sought by petitioner has become stale, therefore the Writ Petition deserves dismissal.

4.1. It is contended that petitioner has no vested right in the tender, since no contractual relationship was created between her and Corporation. It is explained that privity of contract arises only when the bid is formally accepted by the Corporation, and that no such acceptance was ever issued to petitioner. o

4.2. Respondents rely upon the judgment of the Honble Supremr: Court in Indore Yikas Pra:thikaran (IDA) tt. Ilurnud Jain Sarnrlj Ttr.tstl, to assert that even the highest bidder does not acqu ire any enforceable right merely on the basis of quoting the highest amount. Further, respondents dispute petitioner's claim ttrat she was the highest bidder, as another bidder, Subhastra, quoted Rs. 2,92,3991-, higher than petitioner's bid of Rs. '.2,6l,000l-; both the bidders deposited an EMD of Rs. 10,C0,000/- each. It is therefore, contended that petitioner was not the highest bidder and that even otherwise, the highest bidder isi not entitk:cl to issuance of a writ directing allotment of licence.

4.3. Respondents explain that the earlier licensee, Sandeep Bandari Iiled Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 seeking extension of licence period and obtained an interim suspension of the te nder notification dated 19.07.2024. Due to the interim order v,hich remained in force from time to time, the Corpora'-ion was unable to proceed 'with the tender process. They also state that the highest bidder, Subhasha, submitted a request dated 06.11 .2024 seeking refund of his EMD on I t AtR zozs sc 322 a account of the pendency of wrir. petition and his EMD was refunded on Lo.r2.2o24. petitioner was also advised to take refund of her EMD since the tender could not be finarized. The corporation denies any assurance being given to petitioner that licence would be granted to her after dismissar of writ petition. They reiterate that crause 16(d) of the tender notification reserves the right of the corporation to reject any tender or bid. It is stated that after receipt of proceedings dated 22.os.2o2s cancelling the tender and directing her to take refund, the petitioner accepted the same without raising any objection or protest. She did not challenge cancelation order immediately nor did she take steps to implead herself in writ petition No. 20948 of 2024. 4'4. It is stated, after writ petition No. 2og4g of 2024 was withdrawn on 26-06.2025, the corporation initiated steps to issue a fresh tender notification; petitioner filed this writ Petition only to obstruct the fresh tender process and to attempt to secure the licence without participating in the new competitive process. They assert that the entire delay was caused only due to the interim suspension of tender notification by this court. petitioner was issued repry dated 01.og.2o2s 8 explaining the factual reasons, including that the highest bidder had withdrawn and that fresh. tenders would be issued. Direct allotmeni- to petitioner is impermissible because it would defeat the principles of open competition and affect potential bidders. They state that fresh bids were invited under e-Tender Notification dated 18.08.2025 and petitioner is free to participa[e in the said tender process.

5. Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for petiti,rner and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and paused the record.

6. Having perused the pleadings of both the parties and having heard learned counsel on either side, it is clear that petitioner's claim proceeds on the assumption that her tender r.\'as accepted, but the counter affidavit clearly indicates that no letter of acceptance or confirmation of bid was ever issued to her. There is nothing on record to show that contractual rights crystallized in favour of petitioner. On the contrary, as per the counter, the highest bid was submitted by another tenderer, namely iiubhasha, and he subsequently withdrew and received refund o[ his EMD on 10.12.2024. Further, tender notification dated 19.07.2024 was suspended by the interim order in Writ 9 Petition No. 20948 of 2A24 dated O5.O8.2O24. Respondents were, therefore, legally disabled from processing the tender and they are justified in cancelling the tender notification when it could not be acted upon for nearly one year. Petitioner's contention that Corporation had assured to grant iicence after disposal of the said Writ Petition cannot be accepted when there was no concluded contract, no acceptance of bid and no binding representation.

7. Here, it is pertinent to note that Clause 16(d) of general terms and conditions specifies that Corporation reserves the right to reject any one or all the tenders received without assigning any reason and no correspondence in respect of the decisions arrived by the tender committee r.vill be entertained. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Vtko,s Praadhikarant's cq.se (supra), held that in the absence of allotment letter and acceptance of highest bid, no relief couid have been granted in favour of bidder. To come to the said conclusion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: o We are fortified in our view by a decision of this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma [U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash (2013) 5 SCC 182: (20l3l 2 SCC (Civ) Sharma, MANU/SC/0393/2013:2013:INSC:271: 7371, wherein the questions arose for its consideration tllat: whettrer there is any vested riglrt upon the PlaintilI bidder until the bid is accepted b1' the competent authority in i0 relation to l:re pioperty in question? Merely becau.';e tire Plaintilf is the highest bidder by depositing 2Oo/o oi the bid arnount wittrout there being approva-l of the same by the compctelrt zuthlrrity and it amounrs to a. concluded contlact in relation to the plot in q,lestrotr; and u,hether the Plaintiff c.uld have meintained the suit in the absence of a cogcludecl :orrtract? Conr;idering the aforesaid ql.lr:stions, this Court has discussed the matter thus;: (SCC pp. I95-97, paras 3O-31)

30. hr support of the said proposition, the lea-rned Senior Counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Rakesh Dt'ivedi has also placed re[ance upon another decision of this Court in State of U.P. 'i. V,jay Bahadur Singh [State of U.P. v. Vrjay Bahadur Singh, MANU/SC7 O220 11982: (19821 2 SCC 3651. Tne learned Senior Counsel has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rajasttran Housing Board case [Rajasthart Housing Brard v. G.S. Investments, MANU/SCl468312006 : 2OO6:INSC:766: (2OO7l I SaC 4771 irh:ch reads as under: (SCC p. 483, para 9)

9. Ttris being the settled legal posi,'ion, the Respondent acquired no right to claim that the iiuction be concluded in its favour aird the High Court clearly erred in entertaining the writ petition and in not only issuing a direction for consideration of the representatioir but also issuing a furttrer direction to the Appellant to issue a demand note of the balaet:e arnount. The direction rela.ting to issuance of the demand note for balance amount r.irtualiy amounted to conlirmation of the auction in favour of the Respondent which was not t}re function of the High Cot:rt. In Srare of Orissa v. Harinarayan iais-wal [State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, !{ANLI,/SC,'0379 i!972 1972:INSC:77: (1c721 2 SCC 361 case, relevant paragraph of which reads as uuder: {SCC ap.44-45, para 13}

13. There js no concluded contract till the bid is accepted. Before there was a concluded contract. it .r,as open to t1le bidders to withdraw their bids (see Union of India v. Bhim Sen walzuti P.irnr lunion of india v. Bhim. Sen walaiti Ram, MANU/SC/0087/1969 l1)69:INSC:25a: $9691 ii SCC la6l). [Er;.: 'fhe nratter between two asterisks has been emphasise,l in Avam Evam Vikas Parishad case, MANU/SC/0393/2013 2013:INSC:271: (2013) 5 SrlC 1821. By rrerely giving bids, the bidders had not acquired any vested rights [Ed.: The rnurtter between two asterisks has been emphasised in Avam Evam Vikas Pzrishad c.r.se, MANU/SC/O393/2013: 2013: INSC: 271: (2013) 5 SCC 1821". B. In vie'*' of the settled iegal position, petitioner has no legal lasis to insist that respondents must allot the stall to her u.ithout calling for fresh tenders. Furthermore, petitioner has not rnade an atternpt to implead herself in Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 filed to cancel the tender notification dated I9.O7.2O24. This Court therefore, finds no arbitrariness in the decision of the respondenrs to issue fresh tender notification dated 18.08.2025 and cannot issue a positive mandamus directing allotment of licence in favour of petitioner.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. EMD amount, if any held by the respondent authorities in respect of the tender notification dated 19.07.2024 shall be returned to petitioner. No costs.

10. Consequently, I.A.Nos. 2 to 4 of 2025 shall stand dismissed. / SDT S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CC to SRI C. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI A. ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies DAN HIGH COURT DATED:0311212025 ORDER WP.No.23447 of 2025 STr,l'E $1 ttB ltftt .t.. + * Dg-q;'.,1.. a DISMISSII{G THE WRIT PETITION IIrlOUT COSTS "!'