The High Court · 2025

5. Mr.E.Babu Naidu, Naidu, Aged 51 years, occ. Business, ReskJent of H.No.9-4-37l306, chamundesaii Resideniy, Hisimitnfii, otij Bowenpally, Hyderabad - 5O0009. -s/g.,_!,amachandra AND ...PETITIONERS

1. state of relangpn?,. B.ep..by. its. ?rincipal Secretary, Energy Department ^ Jelangana Secretariat, Hyderbbad, Telangan a - SOOOZZ z. I-"lro1La_. Renewable Eneroy -. Deielopment corporation Limited, g_G..FF.Dco),_corporate office."b.tto.o--z-g-io, Visvesvai.aya ahavan, rhe lnstitution of Engineers Building, Kharatiabad, HyderaOad-StiOOO+. nep.Oy iti Managing Directbr. 3. Southem Power Distribution goryqqly of retangana Limited (TGSPDCL), 61- 150, Mint compound, Hyderabad-500063. Rep.5y its Manigirig birectoi' ..-4. Northern Power H.No. 2-5-3112, District, Rep.by its D

5. Union of lndia, Ministry of Bhawan, CGO ComPlex, Secretary. Director. And Renewable Energy, Atal Akshaya U Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. Rep.by ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the e-Procurement Tender Notice (Web Portal lD No. 611245) 2025 along with conigendum-l dated.22-07-2025, corrigendum-ll dated O2-O8-2O25 and Corrigendum - lll dated 05-08-2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent in so far as i. The Awarding of work on a cluster basis clubbing several villages as outlined in table-l at section-ll by selecting two Bidders for each cluster. Prescription of financial eligibility/annual turnover as outlined in Table-l at section-ll only by the Lead Member/ Bidder or Parent Company of the Lead Member while allowing Technical Eligibility Criteria by the Bidder and/or along with consortium members i. Clause-7 and 8 of the corrigendum-ll prescribing for allotment of 2 clusters to one bidder clubbing L1 and L2 as well as prescription of minimum cumulative capacity for each cluster, superseding the original prescription of allotting one cluster to one bidder ii. Rejection of objections submitted by the 1't Petitioner Association on 1O'O7'2O25 to the tender notice dt.O4-O7-2O25 through proceedings Ref. No TGREDCO/SOLAR/GCRT/ModeI Solar VillageslRlsl2}25-261832 dt.11.O8.2025 of the 2nd Respondent and closing the bid submission-date by 114,8-2025 without giving any time to submit the bids after rejection of objections to the members of the 1st Petitioner Association being illegal, arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia apart from being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent i. To reissue the Tender treating each village as a cluster. Allow the consortium to meet the financial eligibility criteria as was allowed to meet the technical eligibility criteria and iii. To award the work at each cluster/ village only to one Bidder iv. To extend the bid submission closing date granting opportunity to the members of the 'lst Petitioner Association 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Tender Notice (Web portal lD No. 611245) NO.TGREDCO/SOLAR/GCRT/MODEL SOLAR VILLAGES 125-26 FOR DESIGN, SUPPLY, INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF 7.5 KW GROUND MOUNTED (HIGH RAISE STRUCTURE) SOLAR SYSTEM FOR SOLARISING EXISTING GRID CONNECTED AGRICULTURE PUMP SETS FOR AN AGGREGATED CAPACITY OF 126300 KW FOR 16840 NOS IN 81 VILLAGES WITH MONO PERC SOLAR MODULES WITH DCR CONTENT WITH 5 YEARS COMPREHENSIVE MAINTENANCE IN THE STATE OF TELANGANA UNDER PM-KUSUM c (lPS) scHEME, dated.04-02-202s, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner No.1: SRt. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counselfor the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondgnt Nos. 2&3: SRt N. SRTDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counselfor the Respondent No.4: SRI A. CHANDRA SHEKAR, counser for the Respondent No.S:SRt KALAii[3XJE[1r',t' SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER t9 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITIONS No. 23949 AND 2395O OF 2O25 COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No. 23949 of 2025 is filed questioning the e-Procurement Tender Notice (Web Portal ID No. 611247l dated O4.O7.2025 along with Corrigendum-I dated 22.07.2025, Corrigendum-ll dated O2.O8.2O25 and Corrigendum-[Il dated

05.08.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent - Telangana Renewable Energr Development Corporation.Limited in so far as (i) Awarding of work on a cluster basis clubbing several villages as outlinecl in Table I at Section II by selecting two bidders for each clusLer (ii) Prescription of financial eligibility/annual turnover ars outlined in Table 1 at Section II only by the Lead Member/Biclclcr or Parent Company of the Irad Member while allou,irrg Tcchnical Eligibility Criteria by the Bidder and/or along ',t,ith consortirrm mernbers (iii) Clause 7 & 8 of the Corrigendum II prescribing for allotment of 2 clusters to one bidder clubbing Ll and L) as r,r'ell as prescription of minimum cumulaLivc capacitl' tor eacl'r cluster, superseding the original prescription of allotting on(' cluster to one bidder (iv) Rejection of objections submittcd bv the first petitioner Association on 1O.O7.2025 to the tenclcr noticc dated 04.O7.2025 through proceedings Ref.No. 't .l ,i ,l n 2 TGREDCO/ SOLAR/GCRT/Model Solar Villages/ RTS 12025- 261827 dated LL.O8.2O25 of the 2nd Respondent and closing the bid submission date by 1L.O8.2O25 without giving any time to submit the bids after rejection of objections to the members of 1st petitioner Association, being illegal, arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 & 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent (i) to reissue the tender treating each village as a cluster (ii) allow the consortium to meet the {inancial eligibility criteria as was allowed to meet the technical eligibility criteria and (iii) to award the work at each cluster village only to one bidder (i") to extend the bid submission closing date granting opportunity to the members of the lst petitioner ilssocratron.

2. Writ Petition No. 23950 of 2025 is filed questioning thc e-Procurement Tender Notice (Web Portal tD No. 611245l clated O4.O7.2025 along with Corrigendum-l dated 22.07.2025, Corrigendum-ll dated O2.O8.2O25 and Corrigendum-ftl darted 05.08.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent - Tclangana Rcneu,able Enerry Developrn"irt Corporation Limited in so far as (i) An'arrding of work on a cluster basis clubbing sevcral villages i-rs outlined in Table I at Section II by selecting tu'o bidders for I !1 fl, ,, t, l I j J (n each cluster (ii) Prescription of financial eligibility/annual turnover as outlined in Table I at Section II only by the Lead Member/Bidder or Parent company of the Lead Member while allowing Technical Eligibility Criteria by the Bidder and/or along with consortium members (iii) clause 7 & 8 of the corrigendum II prescribing for allotment of 2 clusters to one bidder clubbing L 1 and L. '2 as well as prescription of minimum cumulative capacity for each cluster, superseding the original prescription of allotting one cluster to one bidder (iv) Rejection of objections submitted by the first petitioner association on 10.O7.2425 to the tender notice O4.O7.2O25 thi.ough proceedings Ref. No. TGREDCOiSOLAR/GCRT/ModeI Solar Villages/RTs/ 2025-261832 dated L1.o8.2O25 of the 2nd Responclent ancl ctosing the bid submission date by 11 .o8.2O25 without giving any time to submit the bids after rejection of objections to the members of lst petitioner Association. Consequentlv to set aside the same and direct the 2nd Responclcnt (i) to reissue the tender treating each village as a cluster (ii) allou, thc consortium to meet the financial eligibility criteria as \\'as allo'*'ecl to meet the technical eligibility criteria and (iii) t9 arvarcl the rn'ork at each cluster village only to one bidder (ir,) to extend the bid submission closing date granting opportunitv 1o the members of the lst petitioner association' t 'i 't i'll t, I : I : I I, t:' 4 3' The facts, in nutshen, common to both the cases, are as follows. The primary contention of petitioners is that there are about 25o integrators registered in the State of Telangana who are eligible to install ttre Roof rop solar power plants and the lst petitioner Association consists of 150 members (integrators) who are all having vast experience for installation of Roof Top solar power prants for both domestic and commercial establishments. It is contended that the Government of India, under pM Surya Ghar project issued operational guidelines for installation of grid connected roof top to be implemenred till financial year 2026-22. It is further contcndcd that integrators like petitioners are registered with ths -)ttr Respondent - union of India and are entitled to install s.[ar r.o[ t.ps. It is further contended that the Government o[ t.diat to encourage the residential users, is granting subsidy (rr, Rs.3(),0o0 I - for the lirst 2kw and Rs.lg,000 / - for the additional lku' :rnd that the state of Telangana, in order to encourage the residentiirl consumers, intend to implement pM surya Ghar Pr.jcct thi'.ugh the 2"d Respondent by paylng balance cost to thc i.tegrar,ors. It is stated the 2'd Respondent issued Tender Notic:e dzrted o4-o2.2o25 for design, suppry, installation and <:.mmissi.ning .f' z.s Kw Ground Mounted (High Risc ) rr) Structure) Solar system for solarizing existing grid connected agriculture pump sets for an aggregated capacity of 126300 KW for 16840 Nos. in 81 villages with mono perc solar modules with DCR content with five years comprehensive maintenance in the state of Telangana under PM KUSUM c (rps) Scheme. tt is .l also stated the 2"d Respondent, who is the nodar agency issued tender notilication dated o4.or.2025 calling for tenders through e-procurement tender process for design, supply, installation and commissioning of 2KW Normal Structure on Grid solar Roof Top PV Power Planrs for an aggregated capacity of 8o69g KW for 40349 Nos. Domestic services with normal structure in go . villages with Mono Perc solar Modules with DCR content with Iive years' comprehensive maintenance in the State of Telangana.

3.1. fhs fr*l Respo.dcnt in thc Tender Notilication had divided the work into flcrur clusLers for 8o698 KW in each of the tender notifications, by prescribing technical experience as well as financial turnover capacitv as mentioned in the bid documents. These writ Petirions are filed impugning the said tender notices alleging that thc 2,,.t Respondent ought to have made smaller clusters o[ more numbers instead of making only four clusters for 80698 KW in each of the tender notifications. It is alleged that by making into onl--v four clusters,-_the 2.d \-\ 'i 'i 6 Respondent imposed stringent technical experience and {inancial turnover capacity instead of prescribing more.number of clusters with less technical and financial turnover which would have encouraged more bidders, and quoted competitive f, price. Therefore petitioners contend that conditions are tailor- made to suit only a few and to avoid competition' It is further stated by petitioners, the neighbouring 3.2. States have formed several small clusters which have not been follou,ed in the Stzrte of Telangana by the 2nd Respondent. In view of the said condition, they could not participate in the tender process, hence, the impugned tender document has to be set aside as it is tailor-made only to suit a few and avoid competition from larger number of tenderers/bidders. In para 15 o[ thc al-ficlavit, petitioners further stated t]rat the 2"d Responclcnt ought ro have extended the time for submitting bids which n'ould have e ncouraged at least the eligible local vendors/ members o[ the 1*' pcLitioner Association who would be able to submit thc bicls. Ttle 2r'(t Respondent liled counter-Affidavit opposing

4. grant O[ elny orclers in the writ Petition, contending that tender rvvas floarcd flor installation of roof top solar systems and solariserti<-rn o[ agricult,r-rral pumP sets in selected Model Solar Viltagcs ancl Mandals covering 81 villages and that a Tender [' I 7 (i committee was constituted by the Government of Telangana uide G.O. Rt No. 29, dated 20-6.2025 by the Energr Department with the following members. Chairman & Managing Director, TGSpDCL Chairman & Managing Director, TNSpDCL Vice Chairrnan & Managing Director, TGREDCO Deputy Secretary, Energr Department Deputy Secretary, Finance Department.

4.L. It is stated, tender document was prepared as per the recommendations and suggestions of the Tender committee and in accordance with the MNRE guidelines for the components of Roof Top solar systems and solarisation of Grid connected Agricultural pump sets. It is flurther stated that there is no iltegality or irregularity in dividing rhe rotal work into four clusters in each tender notification and lixing the criteria for. technical experience and financial carpabirit-v. Apart from installation and commissioning o[ solar roof top structures and ground mounted structures, the successl'ul biddcrs will have to provide comprehensive maintenancc contract for a period of five years- If the clusters are increased and srnall players are invited, there is likely of small prayers not maintaining the contract, free of cost for a period of five years, *,hich wourcl crefcat the purpose for which the work under the tender is uncrertaken. In any event, it is submitted that tenclcr documcnt is prepared as per > ,) 't 'l 'l 8 the recommendations of the Tender Committee in accordance with MNRE guidelines by experienced officers of the State:

4.2. It is further contended that it is not open for petitioners to suggest the number of clusters as the same is fixed based on the recommendations of the Tender committee. on one breath, petitioners contend that to avoid integrators such as lst petitioner association, technical experience and financial turnover has been f-rxed and on the other, contends that the 2^rl Respondent ought to have extended lurther time for submission of bids so that some of the local vendors and members of thelst petitioner would be able to submit bids. The ' 2r,a Respondent contends that these Writ Petitions are filed onty to stall the time-bound developmental activity which has been undertaken with thc fttnds of the Union of India and the State which would be fbr the benefit of rural areas and production of Renewable Bnergl,-. It is further contended, MSMEs. were not barred from participtrLion provided they meet tl:e prescribed qualification criteria. tn [act, many bidders, who have participated arc registered MSMEs. It is stated that tender conditions were ftrrrnulated strictlt' in accordance with MNRE guidelines, approved by the compctent authority and designed to ensure transparency, fair competition and efficient execqtion in tty; Iargcr public intcrest. Further, the objections of the l't ! .t I tlLi E E [, t. t. 9 I petitioner Association dated Lo.o7.2o25 were duly examined, addressed and rejected through a reasoned communication dated 11.o8.2o25. The eligibility criteria have been lixed to align with the scale and urgency of the Model Solar Villages project, ensuring that only bidders with proven capacity both financial and technical - can meet the delivery requirements. The primary and sole objective of the tender is to ensure the selection of bidders who are technically competent, financially sound and demonstrably capable of completing the project within the stipulated timelines, adhering to the prescribed quality standards and at competitive rates and not intended to exclude any particular category of bidders. [t is contended that if the process of tender is stalled, the timelines tlxcd b.y (]overnment of India cannot be met with and morc Lhan 4OO0O beneficiaries/ 16846 pump-sets on whose roof tops solar panels are installed would be affected. It is statcd, the:re is no illegality / irregularity in the tender process and thc scope clf present Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constituttion ol India regarding contractual issues is limited atrcl prav this Court to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

5. Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learncd coutrsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Etrerg.f on behalf of the lst respondent, Sri N. Sridhar Rcdclt', learncd Standing { .l 'l t I I i,i I I Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 and Sri A. Chandra Shekqr, learned Standing Counsel for the 4ti respondent.

6. Upon a detailed analysis of the pleadings, it is to be seen, petitioners' prirnary allegations centered on the clustering of villages, prescription of linancial eligibility criteria limited to the lead member or its parent company, modifications in Corrigendum II regarding allotment of clusters and minimum cumulative capacit5r, and rejection of their objections.without extending bid submission date. Petitioners argued that these aspects violated Articles 14 and l9(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, as they were arbitrary, irrational and designed to favour a few bidders by excluding smaller integrators like the members of the lst petitioner Association. Specifically, petitioners highlighted that dividing the work into only four cllrsters per tendcr with high financial turnover requirements discouraged competition, unlike in neighboring states '*,here smaller clustt.:rs were formed. They further contended that altowing c<lnsortia to meet technical criteria but not f-rnancial ones was inconsistent, and that tlle change frorn allotting onc cluster per bidcler to allowing two clusters by clubbing L I and L2 rvas superseding the original terms without justification. Additionally, the rejection of their objections on 11.08.2025 and immecliate closure of bids on the f. T. same day deprived them of time to submit bids, violating natural justice.

7. In contrast, the 2nd respondent's counter-affidavit provided a comprehensive rebuttal to each point raised by the petitioners. Regarding clustering, the 2"d respondeut explained that division into four clusters per tender was based on recommendations of the Tender Committee constituted uide G.O. Rt No. 29 dated 20.6.2021 comprising experienced officials such as Chairman & Managing Direct<-rr, TGSPDCL; 'Chairman & Managing Director, TNSPDCL; Vice Chairman & Managing Director, TGREDCO; Deputy Secretarry, Ener5, Department; and Deputy Secretary, Finance Deperrtmcnt. This was done in accordance with MNRE guidelincs tc; eI-ISure efficient execution, including five years of comprche nsive maintenance, which smaller clusters with nunlerolls small players might not sustain, as there is a risk of norr-compliernce u,ith the free maintenance obligation, theretrl' clt:l'cating thc project's purpose of benefiting rural areas and rettcrr':tl-llt: (:11('r'gi' production. The 2.d respondent negated petitioners' sttggcstiorl for village-wise clusters by stating that it is IloL opcrl [o petitioners to dictate the number of clusters, as Ltris u'as er policy decision aligned with project scale and urgetrt:-t., aucl Lhat monitoring numerous village-level clustcrs r,r'oulcl bc \ 'l '* 'l .trt. i [: I 'i,l I I i I ,j ,i t2 impractical, as evidenced by the participation of 27 bidders, including 18 MSMEs and 9 local ones, against 8 clusters, demonstrating sufficient competition.

8. On the linancial eligibility criteria, the 2nd respondent justified restricting it to the lead member or its parent company by emphasizing the need for financial f, soundness to handle the aggregated capacities of 80698 KW for 4O34g domestic services in 80 villages ancl 126300 KW for 16840 agricultural pump sets in 81 villages, ensuring timely completion and quality standards under PM Surya Ghar and PM KUSUM C (IPS) schemes. The allowance fcrr consortia in technical criteria but not financial was explained as a deliberate choice to maintain accountabilit_y, as financial stabilitv is critical for the lead entity managing the project, and this was in line with MNRE guidelines. The 2".r respondent pointecl out that MSMEs were not barred, and man-v participated, countering the petitioners' claim of exclusion.

9. Regarding Clauses 7 ancl 8 of Corrigenclum I[, the 2'd respondent defended allotment o[ two clusters b-y clubbing L1 and L2 artd prescribing minimrlm cumuliltive capacity as a measure to optimize resource allocation and ensurc'competitive rates, superseding the original one-cltrster-per-bidder rule based on Tender Committec recomrnendatior-rs to align with 7 1, f. l3 project timelines fixed by the Government of India. This change was not arbitrary but aimed at efficient implementation without compromising transparency.

10. As to the rejection of objections and bid closure, the 2"d respondent stated that objections dated lo.or.2o25 were duly examined and rejected ufa reasoned proceedings derted

11.o8.2o25 in writ Petition No. 23949 of 2o2s and proceedings datecl 1L.o8.2o25 in writ petition No. 23950 of 2o2s, ancl rhar closing bids on LL.o8.2o25 was per the schedule after multiple corrigenda (dated 22.07.2025, a2.o9.2o2s, and 0s.08.2o25) \ \ '*'hich already extended opportunities. The 2nrt respr>ndent argued that further extension would stall the time-bound project, affecting over 4oooo beneficiaries and 16946 pump sets, and that petitioners' contradictory pleas-of exclusion \.ct requesting time for members.to bid-indicated an intent to clclzr_,u. { ( rather than genuine grievance. : . I l. In the light of the same, this court is of rhc ,pinion that petitioners failed to demonstrate any arbitrarincss or violartion of constitutional provisions. The tender proccss \r':ls transp:rrent, based on expert committee recommendzrtiorrs irnd MNRE guiclelines, with adequate participation negating cluims of tailor-made conditions, The scope of judicial revieu. under Article 226 in tender matters is limited to examining proc.css { 'i { .I{E t. I' t4 legality, not substituting administrative decisions unless mala fide or irrational, which was not established here. petitioners' bald assertions lacked evidence of favouritism and respondent's reasons for each impugned aspect were rational, aimed at public interest in 'renewable energr development. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

1.2. No costs.

13. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. To, SD'.K.BH AVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT I/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER \*:BB j%'slpgFEft Hs.r,'0[t3hH']',[:"sElo5',:l,"sanaat 1 Elt"it n dni. hiffimrpr iifffl"fiFIfls['9ilh =., toPUCl

6. Two CD CoPies BM GJP AD It HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 o\) iA t>. o ? I 0 J NA t1 0 b (':7 * * ,TrTCl COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.23949 AND 23950 ot 2O25 DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 0r\,.1 v? 1f