High Court · 2025

16. M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Services, Rep. By its Partner, Sundari Nagarani, Wo. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 34 years, Occ Business, Rlo. 12-211114, Sriramnnarayana Colony, Kodad, Suryapet District.

17. M/s.Sri Vigneswara Agency, Rep. by its Partner, Ledangi Venkate:shwarlu, S/o Sadufu Aged abourt 30 years, R/o. H.No.8-5C, Lingala Village, Pepahad Mandal, Suryapet District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndier praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the {igh Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, morer particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the f2nd respondent in empanelling the Respondent Nos.12 to 17 ir Proceedings in Rc.No.A2169/0S/Agencies/2025, dated 23.07.2025 in pursuance of Tender Notification No.A2IOS/SRPf 2025, dated '1 3 06,2025 thereoy issuing work order in Proceedings Rc.No.A2i0S/June/2025, dated 20.08 20125, without having mandatory requisite qualifications as per terms and condit'ons of Tender Notice No.A2l0S/SRPT12025, dated '13.06.2025, as illegal, arbitr:rry and violation of guidelines framed under G O Rt No.4459, dated 27 12 2006 as well as G.O.Rt.No.4271 , dated 01 .'1 1 2008 and violation of Articles '4, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside the Proceedings in Rc. No.A2169/0S/Agencies/2025, dated 23.07.2025 as werll as Proceedings Rc No A2I0S/Junel2O25, dated 20 082025 of the 2nd respondent issued in favour of the Respondent Nos.12 to '17 forthwith, thereby to continue the services of the petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings in Rc.No.A2l69/OS/Agenciesl2025, dated 23.02.2025 as well as Proceedings Rc. No.A2iOSlJunel2025, dated 20.08.2025 of the 2nd respondent issued in favour of the Respondent Nos.12 to 17 to carryout outsourcing services in the departments of Respondent Nos.5 to 11 forthwith by continuing the petitioners agency services, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 3 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 modify the interim orders, dated 01.09.2025 in l.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No 26173 of 2025 as "Maintainrng parity, till next date of hearing, the proceedings dated 23.07.2025 as well as 20.O8.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent stand suspended to the extent of Respondent Nos.12 to 17 thereby to continue the services of the petitioners agencies " instead of "Maintaining parity, till next date of hearing, the proceedings daled 23.07.2025 as well as 20.08.2025 itueO Oy the 2nd respondent stand suspended." and pass such othi:r order or orders. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: '1 The District Collector and Chairman, Suryapet, Suryapet District. District Odtsourcing Committee,

2. The District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Suryapet District

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Suryapet, Suryapet District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 2 J 4 fVl/s. Sangeeta Manpower and Security Solutions, O/o. 2-7 -96181212, Sainikpuri Colony, Suryapet, Suryapet District, Rep. by its Partner, Jalagam Sagar, S/o. Gangaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business. M/s. Bhargavi Graphics, Olo.1-1-119, Main Road, Tallagadda, Suryapet District, Rep. by its Managing Director. S Srinivasa Chary, S/o. Bikshamaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business. M/s. Sri Sai Ram lnfra Projects, O/o 6-66i1 , Road No 6, Anjanapuri Colony, Suryapet Town and District, Rep. by its Managing F'artner, K. Sandeep Kumar, S/o. Madhusudhan Reddy, Aged about 4'l years;, Occ. Business. M/.. Leena Manpower Services, O/o.3-1 1-19, Rajiv Nagar, Suryapet Town and District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mamidi Annapurna, W/o. Mamidi Kiran, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 5. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6. The Medical Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

7. The Chief Engineer, lrrigation Division, Huzurnagar, Suryapet District. 8. The Government Medical College, Rep. by its Prrncipal. Suryapet, Suryapet District.

9. The Community Health Centre, Rep. by its Superintendent, Kodad, Suryapet Distrrct.

10.The District Medical and Health Officer, Suryapet District. 'l 1.The Joint Director, Animal Husbandary Department anrj District Veterinary Department, Suryapet District '12.The Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Suryapet District.

13.M/s. U.P.A.R. Man Power Agency, Suryapet, Rep. by its Proprietor, Katakam Ramesh, S/o. Jogaiah, Aged about 52 yeari, Occ. Business, R/o.Flat No.8- 85, Main Road, Ponugodu, Garidepalle Mandal. Suryapet District, PIN - 508201

14. M/s. Unicus Security Services Pvt Ltd, Suryapet, Rep. t3y, its Partner, Damidi Sal Preetham, S/o. Pradeep Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1 -6-1 41 129 l6lH2l2, Sri Ramnagar, Suryapet ]Own and District. 15.M/s. Purna Agency, 0/o.6-133, Gandhi Nagar, Kodad, Suryapet District, Rbp. by its Proporietor, Konda Purna Chander Rao, S/o. Konda Venkati, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business. '16. M/s.Teja Outsourcing Agency and manpower Services lep. By its Partner Mekapothula Saritha, D/o. Ramulu aged 38 years, R1c House No. 6-37, Shivalayam Bazar. Garidepally, Suryapet District. '17-Mls. Sri Venkateshwara Services, Rep. By its Partner, Surdari Nagarani, Wo. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Businerss, Rlo. 12-21111A, Sriramnnarayana Colony, Kodad, Suryapet District.

18. M/s.Sri Vigneswara Agency, Rep !y its Partnet Ledangi .Venkate^shwarlu, Slo. Saduiu Aged aboJrt 36 year's, Rio- H.No.8-5C, Lingala Village, Pepahad Mandal, Suryapet District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders dated 01,09.2025 passed in wP No. 2617312025 and dismiss the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1,5,7,8,9&10: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW Counsel for the Respondent No.2to4 : GP FOR LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION Counsel for the Respondent No.11TO17 : The Court made the following: ORDER , HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 26L73 OF 2025 ORDER: Petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the action of the 2"d respondent in empanellinB Rcspondents 12 to 17 in Proceedings dated 23.O7 .2025 pursuar t to Tender Notihcation dated 13.06.2025 thereby issuing u'ork order in Proceedings dated 20.O8.2025, withoul havin;3 mandalory requisite qualifications as per terms and conditrr,n s of 'l'ende r Notice dated 13.06.2025, as illegal, arbitrary ar-r I violation of guidelines framed under G.O.Rt.No.4459, datcd 27.12.2006 as well as G.O.Rt.No.4271, dated O 1. I 1.2008 ancl violation of Articles 14, 19 and 2l of the Constituticn ol India. ConsequentlJ', 1-o set aside Proceedings dated 2 3 07 .2025 as well as Procecclings dated 20.08.2025 oi the 2rrd tespondcnt issued in favour of Respondents 12 lo 17 lorthwith, thercby to conlinue the seruices of petitioners.

2. Petitioners state that Lhey are estrrtrlished and registered outsourcing agencies, each holdingl vahd and subsisting licenses issued by the competenL authorilies under the relevant labour, employment and t stablishment enactments. They have been engaged in thc business of 1 providing outsourcing and manpower services to various Government Departments within Suryapet District for several years and have been discharging their obligations strictly in accordance with law and to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities.

2.1. It is stated, petitioners' firms are fully compliant with all applicable statutory requirements and hold valid registrations, particulars of whrch are as follows: (1) M/s. Sangecta Manpower &, Sccurity Solutions Registration No. SEA/SUR / ALo / sP / os3o9o5 / 2o2 | ; (2) M/s. Bhargavi Graphics - Registration No. sEA/SUR/ALO / SP I ss293 / 2Or7 ; (3) M/s. Sri Sai Ram Infra Projects Registration No. SEA/ SUR/ ACL / SP / 03 16206 I 2o'2 | ; and (a) M/s. Leena Manpou'er Scrvices 0159747 /2019. Registration No. SEA/SUR /ALo/sP/

2.2. Petitioners further state that they have been continuously providing outsourcing manpower to various .. Government Departments, including Medical and Health, Irrigation, Education, and Administrative sectors, within Suryapet District. Their work has been consistently satisfactory, appreciated by the authorities concerned and free from any adverse remarks or complaints. Their registrations and licenses have been periodically renewed and are valid as on date. t J )

2.3. 'lhe: 2nd Respondent - District Ocllcctor and Chairman, District Outsourcing Committee, Surizrpet District issued Tender Notihcation clated 13.06.2A.2), inviting Applications from qualihed outsourcing : gencrcs lor empanelmenr for the financial year 2O2S 26 T],rc sard notification prescribed certain mandatory :rrtrl t:ssential eligibitity conditions that every participating agcnc!. was required to fulfil, namely: (a) the agency IIrust possess a minimum annual turnover ol. ]() laklts il.t anv one of the last threc hnancial years; (b) it.must hold valid registration with the Emplovees provi(l(.rrr I.Lrrrrl (EpF), Employees State Insurance (ESI), Labour Department, il r(l (;oods and Services Tax (GST) authorities; and (c) it must submit docuurcntan. prooI oI payment oI stat.tor]' contributions for at least six monttrs pr ir)r lo tlre (late of the tender notill.ation.

2.4. Petitioners also state that they fully sarir;fiecl all the above-stated conditions and produced the requircrl cttcumcnts in proof thercof, including turnover certificates, F)l) F- a nd trSI payment statcments, GST returns and valid labr,ur lic:cnses. Upon due scruti.y and verification of these recorcrs. rrre llistrict Level Selection Committee found petitioners cligibli: and accordingly emltanelled them through proceeclings dated 23.07.2025. They further state that, the 3.d Rcsponrlcnt District Employment Officer. Suryapet subsequenrlr. published a iist of 27 empar-relled agencies wherein, apart fror.r.r I)etirioners iI4 4:i i I 4 firms, certain ineligible and unqualihed agencies, nameiy Respondents 12 to 17, were also included. These respondents were placed at Serial Nos. 20, 21,22,25,27, and 1 (pending list), despite their failure to meet the mandatory eligibility criteria prescribed under the tender notihcation.

2.5. Petitioners contend that Respondents l2 to 17 neither possess requisite financial turnover of 30 takhs in any of the last three financial years, as reflected in their GST filings for 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25, nor have thcy maintained valid or continuous compliance under the EPF and ESI Acts' Their inclusion in the final cmpanelment list is, therefore, a blatant deviation from the tender condi[ions and violates fundamental tenets of transparency, fairness and equal opportunity in public procurement. Petitioners also state that the 3.d Respondent thereafter, issued Procccdlngs dated 20.Oa.2025, whereby outsourcing work was allotted to Respondents 72 Lo 17 for the period O1.O4.2025 to 37.03.2026, and the said proceedings were given retrospecLive effect from OI.O4.2025. Petitioners assert that such retrospective allocation of work is legally-impermissible, arbitrary and contrary to the established principles of administrative law, especially when ) their own contracts were valid and subsisting ti.l 31.O3.2O2S and had not been lawfully terminated or cancelled.

2.6. Peti[ioners further state that prior to issuance of the impugned proceedings, they had addressed sevcral representations to Respondents 2 and 3, includingl a detailed representation dated 26.07.2025, seeking extensi,tn of their existing service contracts beyond 31.03.2r):15. These rc Jlresen tation s, hou,ever, were not even considerecl or clisposcd of by the respondents. Instead, the authorities, actirg in unduc haste and under apparent extraneous influence, crocecded to alloL the work to the unqualified private responri(.n ts, thercby ousting Petitioners in a wholly arbitrary and dis,:riminaLory manner 2-7 . Petitioners contend that the impugned ar:tion of t he official respondents is in direct contravention of Clai_rse 6 and Clause IV of the tender document as well as the policy guidelines contained in G.O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27. 2,..2006 and, (].().Rt.No.4271, dated 01.1 1.2OO8, which clearly sripulare rhat empanelment must be restricted to agencies satisfying all prescribed eligibili$ norms and possessing proven finar-rcial and statutory compliance. Any deviation from these rrandatorv ditions vitiates the entire process and renders th,3 selection * 6 invalid. Inclusion of unqualified agencies in the empanelment list amounts to an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power, violating the principles of equality and non- discrimination enshrined under Articles 1+, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners maintain that tender process, being a matter of public interest, must be transparent and objective and any ditution of eligibiliry criteria undermines both administrative lairness and public accountabiliq,'.

2.8. Petitioners also state that dcspite issuance of impugned proceedings, the official respondcnts have continued to avail the services of Petitioners' staff in various departments, thereby acknowledging continuous necessir.y- of engagement. However, while the services of their deployed manpower are being utilized, respondents havc failed to release Petitioners' legitimate dues and pending bills, thereby causing grave hnancial distress and operational difhculties. They finaliy state that in the totalily of the circumstances, the impugned Proceedings are wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the governing statutory provisions, tender terms, and constitutional safeguards. I

3. On O1.O9.2O25, this Court suspended the proceedings dared 23.O7 .2025 as well as 20.O8.21):ar issued by the 2"d respondent till the next date of hearing. 4 The 2"d Respondent - District (lcrllector and Chairman, Districl Outsourcing Committee, Sury:rpet District l.rled counter specifically denying each and every allegation made by Petitioners and contending that the present \['rit Petition is devoid of merits, misconceived in law and not rnarntainable under Art iclc 22b of the Constitution of lndia.

4.1. This Respondent states that the process of empanelment of outsourcing agencies for the linanr:ial ycar 2025-26 was undcrtaken strictly in accorclance with ().O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27.12.2006, which prcscribes the procedure for empanelment and allocation of outsourcing agencies, and G.O.Rt.No.427l, dated 01.11.200ti, which lays dou,n thc framework and guidelines for outsourcinr_1 manpor,r'er to various departments. These Government Orde:s collcctively govern the functioning of the District Outsourcing Committees and empower the District Collector as the ChairmarL of the said Committee, to modify the tender terms, relax or insist upon conditions as deemed necessary, accept or reject F,pplications, {1 8 or even cancel the entire empanelment process in [he interest of administrative exigency.

4.2. It is further stated that contract period for the Irnancial year 2024-25 expired by efflux of time on 31.O3.2O25, therefore, there was no subsisting right in favour of Petitioners to claim continuation or extension of their contracts beyond the said date. The empanelment of outsourcing agencies is not a permanent arrangement but an annual administrative exercise undertaken afresh each hnancial year. Petitioners, being aware of this, participated in the subsequent tender process and are therefore estopped from questioning its outcome merely because the result did not favour them. In accordance with the above Government Orders, a fresh tender notihcation dated

13.06.2025 was issued by the 2nd Respondent inviting Applications from eligible outsourcing agencies for empanelment for the financial year 2025-26. Tender notificati&r was duly published and made accessible to the public, thereby ensuring a transparent and competitive process.

4.3. Respondents also state that in response to the said notihcation, 34 Applications were received. Upon scrutiny, i9 agencies, including Petitioners, were found fully eligible in terms of turnover, statutory registration and compliance requirements. *3ffi@&i.. #I I Three Applications were rejected outright for [ai.ure t.o submit essential documents. The remaining eight agencrc i wcre found to possess valid registrations under the EPF. ESI, Labour Department, and GST laws, but had not furnishccl Cocumentary proof of the minimum annual turnover of 30 lakhs as stipulated under the tcnder conditions. It is further stated. in order to ensure fairness and to provide a reasonable opportunity to all participants. the District Level Selection Commitre3 resolved to allow such agencics to lurnish either proof of tu;n,rver or a bank guarantee for 30 lakhs prior to finalization of ernpanelment. This discretionan relaxation was made uniformh rrpplicable to all similarly siluated applicants and was duly rcc,rrderd in the minutes of the Selection Committee mccring, thereby maintaining transparency and administrative propriety..

4.4. It is also stated, in compliance u'ir.h the said decision, Respondents 12, 14, I6 and I7 lurnished bank guaranlees Ibr 3O lakhs each. u'hile Respondents 13 and 15 produced GST turnover certificates establishing the requisite financial capacity. These documents were receivcrl and verified prior to 23.07.2025, the date on which hnal er4rpanelment list was approvcd. After comprehensive scrutiny of a I the rccords and material, the District Level Selection Comm.t]_ee finalized l0 and empanelled 27 agencies for the year 2025-26 through \ Proceedings dated 23.07.2025. Subsequent to finalization of empanelment list, departmental allocation of work was undertaken by the Committee in accordance with the established procedure and formal allotments were issued through Proceedings dated 20.08.2025 for the financial year 2025-26. The said proceedings were given retrospective effect from O1.04.2O25 only to align the contract period with the financial year, and the same was a mere administrative adjustment having no bearing on the validity or legality of the empanelment itself. The retrospective clause was not intended to confer any undue advantage upon any particular agency, nor did it cause prejudice to Petitioners.

4.5. It is also stated, the entire process from issuance of tender notihcation to hnal empanelment and subsequent allotment was carried out in a transparent, fain'and lawful manner, fully comptiant with the tender terms and Government Orders governing such processes. The empanelment was finalized only after proper veri[ication of documents and objective evaluation by the competent District Level Selection Committee. Respondents further assert that allegations of arbitrariness, favouritism or extraneous influence made by I lI 1 Petitioners :rre baseless, unfounded and unsupported by any credible evi(lence. Petitioners failed to produce any material demonstrating bias or nala ftdes on the part of an1 official. The administrative discretion exercised by the Commitree in allowing submission of turnover prool or bank guarantees .,,(,,1s uniformly extended to all the applicants and cannot be termed arbitrary or d iscrim in ator]

4.6. Ift'spondents zrlso contend that since petitioners' earlier contr;tcts expired on 31.03.2025, their rcpresentations seeking continuation or extension of those contracts are infructuous zrnd unsustainable in law. The right tt> continue as an outsourcing agency ceases upon expiry of the :rnpanelment period and n() legitimate expectation of renewal arises therefrom. Pr:titioners, having voluntarily partici;tzrted in the subsequent tenrler process, are estopped from challenging the same. It is n'raintained that there has been no violertion of any tender condition, statutory provision, or colrstitutional safeguard in the present case. Empanelment arLcj allocation orders were issued in the ordinary course of arlrninistrative procedure and are neither arbitrary nor illegal. It is therefore, stated that Writ Petition, being devoid of any s;ubstantive grounds or legal infirmity, is liable Lo be dismissecl. I l_ 12

5. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Iearned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare for Respondents 1 , 5, 7 to 9 , learned Government Pleader for Labour on behalf of Respondents 2 to 4, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation on beha'lf of the 6m respondent, learned Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry on behalf of Respondent No.1O, learned Government Plaeder for Social Welfare on behalf of Respondent No. I 1.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on either side and has meticulously examined the material placed on record. lt is an admitted fact that empanelment of outsourcing agencies for the ltnancial year 2024-25 came to an end by efflux o[ time on 3 1.03.2O25 and that the 2"d Respondent thereafter issued a fresh Tender Notihcation dated 13.O6.2025, inviting Applications for empanelment o[ outsourcing agencies for the succeeding financial year 2025-26.

7. It is also not in dispute that Petitioners participated in the said tender process, they were found eligible upon scrutiny of their documents and that they were accordingly included in the empanelled [ist under Proceedings dated

23.O7.2025. The grievance of Petitioners, however, is confined to inclusion of Respondents 12 to 17 in the same e;npanelment list, whom t hey allege to be ineligible for wanr of requisite financial turnover and statutory compliance.

8. ()n :r careful perusal of the record, it e rrerges that the District I.eveI Selection Committee permitrc,l the said respondents to [urnish alternative proof of their financial capacity, either by producing bank guarantees lor .lO lakhs or by submitting GST turnover certilicatcs, in lieu of crnventional turnover certificates from auditors. The documents so furnisl-red were duly received, verified and considered by the Committee before f-rnalization of the empanelment list. The pcu.er Lo allow such a coursc o[ action is traceable to G.O.Rt.No 4459, d,ated,

27.72.2006, rvhich vests the District Outsourcinll Committee with limited administrative discretion to grant relaxation in procedural matters, provided the Committee is satidfied as to the financial soundness and operational capability of the applicant agency.

9. This Court is satished that such disc:-etion was exercised uniformly in good faith and for the F)urpose of ensuring a farr opportunity to all the applicants. No material has been plar:ed before this Court to suggest tha.. the said relaxation was cxlended selectively or with any mala./ide intent. {*+r f t4 lnsofar as the retrospective operation of Proceedings dated 20.08.2025, effective from 01.04.2025, is concemed, this Court hnds that the same was only an administrative measure intended to synchronize th,e empanelment period with the financial year, thereby maintaining continuity of services. Such retrospective alignment, being procedural in nature, does not confer any undue beneht upon any agency nor does it vitiate the validiry of the selection process. Upon ovcrall consideration, this Court is of the

10. considered opinion that Petitioners failed to estabiish any element of arbitrariness, illegality, procedural impropriety, or mala ftdes in the conduct of empanelment or the subsequent departmental allocation of outsourcing work. The material placed on record demonstrates that the process was carried out trandparently and in consonance with the tender terms, \, G.O.Rt.No.4459,,dated 27.12.2006, G.O.Rt.No.4271, dated ,) O 1 . 1 1 .2008 and other applicable administrative guidelines. Peti[ioners' contracts for the year 2024-25 having

11. expired on 31.O3.2O25, no vested or enforceablg -righ t survives in their favour to seek continuation or renewal as a matter of course. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in the absence of any statutory or contractual obligation on the part of respondents to renew such engagemetrts. petitioners, challenge to inclusion of other agencies, therr.lore, lacks any sustainable foundation in law. This Court thus finds no reason to interferc with the impugned proceedings dat<:d 23.O2.2025 and 20.O8.2O25. The procedure adopted by thc 2.,d Respondent appears to be fair, reasonable and in accorrlance with the applicable Government Orders, tender nctification and established administrative practice.

12. Lt view of the foregoing discussrorr, this Court concludes that petitioners have not made .)u t any case warranting interference under Article 226 of the C:nstitution of India. The *rit petition is, therefore, devoid of mt:r,ir and is liable to be dismisse<l.

74. closed. To, The Writ petition is therefore, dismiss,..<1. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendir.rq shall stand //TRUE COPY// , SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECT|ON OFFTCER Tetangana. [OUT]

1. One CC to SRt KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate. rOpUCl 2. fwo CCs to Gp FOR MEDTCAL HEALTH FW, High Cor rt for the State of 3. Two CCs to Gp FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State cf Telangana at o Hyderabad [OUT] lyo""?r";:" Siii- lRRlGArloN, Hish court ror the state or reransana at

5. Two CD Copies. BSK BS ,i I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 ORDER WP.No.26173 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS z=- 6er a( H , I,i ,,t o ?0rot,affi t)t-, .\ 2p tl