M/s. Rkec Projects Limited -Yfc Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Union of India

M/s. RKEC Projects Limited -YFC Projects Pvt. Ltd.,^{Rep.byitsGeneral} Manager, Somanadh Namburu, Door No. 10-12-1, 3rd Floor,^Rednam Alcazar, Rednam Gardens, 0pp. SBI Main Branch, Visakhapatnam530002.

¶13

...Appellant (Writ Petitioner)

¶14

AND

¶15

The Union of India, Rep by its Chairman and CEO^{RailwayBoard,} Room N0.256A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi,^India.

¶16

The East Coast Railways, Rep by its Chief Project^{ManagerGatiShakti} Unit, Waltair, DRM Complex, Dondaparthy, Vishakapatnam,^530004.

¶17

M/s TTIPL-DECIPL (JV), Plot No.206, Phase-3, Road^No.76, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500033.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent authority not to enter into any agreement or commencement of work with the 3rd respondent in regard to the tender vide RFP Ho. CPMGSUWATENGG2023012, dated 30.12.2023, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKAT SAILENDRA G

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶23

The Court made the following order:

¶24

APHC010240952025

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-8 AT AMARAVATI [3483]

¶26

WRIT APPEAL NO: 543 of 2025

¶27

M/s. RKEC Projects Limited -YFC Projects

...Appellant

Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

The Union Of India and Others

¶32

...Respondent(s)

¶33

**-kicic****ic

¶34

Advocate for Appellant:

¶35

Mr. Venkateswarlu Gudapati, representing Mr. G. Venkat Sailendra

¶36

Advocate for Respondent:

¶37

Additional Solicitor General

¶38

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶39

DATE : 04“^ July 2025

¶40

Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ:

¶41

The writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order, dated 30.04.2025, passed in W.P. No.8990 of 2025 challenging the rejection of the bid of the petitioner vide communication, dated 31.07.2024, in relation to the Notification Inviting Tender, dated 29.12.2023.

¶42

The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge following the ratio of the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal^{v.StateofOrissa^} which held that judicial review on administrative action^isto check whether a decision was made lawfully and not to check whether^{thedecisionwassound}

¶43

(2007) 14 see 517

¶44

HCJ a RC, J W.A. No;543 of 2025

¶45

and therefore held that the decision to reject the technical bid was neither arbitrary nor irrational, nor did it suffer from mala fides in awarding the contract to respondent No.3 in the writ petition i.e., M/s TTIPL-DECIPL(J V).

¶46

It is not out of place here to mention that on account of the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner, the action of the respondents was challenged by way of W.P. No.20105 of 2024, which was filed on 09.09.2024 and came to be withdrawn on 01.04.2025. It is not denied that the order of withdrawal was without any liberty to file a petition yet again on the same cause of action and was a withdrawal simpliciter.

¶47

There was another challenge to the rejection of yet another bidder I.e., M/s KPC Projects Limited by way of W.P. No. 17150 of 2024, which petition came to be allowed by a single Judge of this Court, by virtue of judgment and order, dated 03.12.2024. A Writ Appeal was then preferred by the East Coast Railways & others and this Court, vide order, dated 12.12.2024 set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in the aforementioned W.P. No.17150 of 2024.

¶48

Pursuant to the writ appeal being allowed, the contract in question came to be allowed in favour of M/s TTIPL-DECIPL(JV). The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein was that in the second round initiated by the appellant herein, W.P. No.8990 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner/appellant herein only after waiting for the outcome of the litigation

¶49

3 HCJ a RC. J W.A. No: 543 of 2025

¶50

,

¶51

initiated by KPC Projects Limited and after getting knowledge of the price bid of the successful tenderer.

¶52

Apart from the view that has been expressed by the learned single Judge on the scope of judicial review, which has already been^considered in the case of East Coast Railway and others v. KPC Projects Ltd^ by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Thakur,J) was a member, we find that the second petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein was not maintainable in view of the fact that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without any liberty having been granted in favour of the petitioner to file yet another petition arising out of the same cause of action.

¶53

The same issue also fell for consideration before the Apex Court ini Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior^ wherein it was held:

¶54

“9. ... we are of the view that the principle underlying^rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in

¶55

^ Decided on 12.12.2024, passed in W.A. No.1034 of^2024&Batch '{1987)1 see 5

¶56

4

¶57

HCJ a RC, i W.A. No: 543 of 2025

¶58

respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition.

¶59