M/s. Rahul Builders, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. RAHUL BUILDERS,, (FIRM NO. 151 OF 2011), REP. BY ITS MANAGING PART N ER, SRI. K. VENKATA RAO, S/ O . SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABO U T 53 YEARS. CONTRACTOR, R/O D.NO.5-54-81, 1/19, BRODIPET, G UNTUR TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE CHIEF E N GINEER, TRIBAL WELFARE D EPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, N.T . R. DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERIN T ENDING ENGINEER, TRIBA L WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, VIS A KHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased topleased to iss u e an order. Writ or direction, more p a rticularly one in the nature of Writ of M a ndamus by declaring the action of Respondents in respect of qualification c r iteria of requiring past experience fr o m the last Five Financial Years only (20 2 0-2021 to 2024-2025) instead of la s t Ten Financial Years in the Tender Notices with Tender ID.Nos. (1) N I T No106/2025-

¶17

2

¶18

26/SE/TW/ Art.275 (i)/DB/Dt.12.07.2025. (2) NIT No.107/2025-26/SE/TW/ Art.275 (i)/DB/Dt. 12.07.2025,(3) NIT No.108/2025- 26/SE/TW/ Art.275 (i)/DB/Dt. 12.07.2025, (4) NIT.No.109/2025-26/SE// Art.275(i)/DB/Dt. 12.07.2025 and (5) Nit.No.113/2025-26/DB/Dt.30.0 7.2025 issued by 3rd Respondent as illegal, irregular, unjust, arbitrary, discrimination, against to the Principles of Natural Justice, Contra guidelines enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 27-06-2025 and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct 3rd Respondent not to proceed with allotment of tenders, further permit the prosperous tenderers to participate in the above Tender Notices in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 27-06-2025 by recalling the subject Tender Notices in the interest of justice and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 pleased to recall the subject tenders by granting stay of allotment procedure in respect of the tenders with Tender ID.Nos. (1) NIT No:106/2025-26/SE/TW/ Art.275(i)/DB/ Dt. 12.07.2025, (2) NIT No:107/2025-26/SE/TW/Art.275 (i)/DB/Dt. 12.07.2025, NIT.Nol 08/2025-26/SE/TW/Art.275(i)/DB/Dt. 12.07.2025(3) (4) NITNo: 109/2025-26/ SE/TW/Art.275(i)/DB/Dt. 12.07.2025 and (5) Nit.No.113/2025-26/DB/Dt.30.07.2025 issued by 3^'^ Respondent further permit the prosperous tenderers to participate in the above Tender Notices in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 27-06-2025 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition in the interest of justice and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶25

3

¶26

The Court made the following Order :

¶27

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in respect of qualification criteria of requiring past experience from the last five financial years i.e., (2020-2021 to 2024-2025) instead of last ten financial years in the tender notices with tender I.D.Nos.(1) NIT

¶28

No.106/2025-26/SE/TW/ Art.275 (i)/DB/ dated 12.07.2025, (2) NIT No.107/2025-26/SE/TW/ Art.275 (i)/DB/ dated 12.07.2025, (3) NIT No.108/2025-26/SE/TW/ Art.275 (i)/DB/ dated 12.07.2025 (4) NIT

¶29

No.109/2025-26/SE/TW/ Art.275 (i)/DB/ dated 12.07.2025 and (5) NIT No.113/2025-26/DB/ dated 30.07.2025 issued by 3^rd respondent as illegal, irregular, unjust, arbitrary, discrimination and against the principles of natural justice, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 27.06.2025 and violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct 3^rd respondent not to proceed with allotment of tenders, further permitting prosperous tenderers to participate in the above tender notices in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 27.06.2025 by recalling the subject tender notices.

¶30

The petitioner is a registered Class-I (Civil) Contractor with the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Department with Registration No.COT/AP/FC/1294/2023, valid from 02.07.2023 to 01.07.2028 and also registered under UDYAM with Registration No.UDYAM-AP-04-0004498. In the year 2003, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.94, I&CAD (PW-COD) department dated 01.07.2003, prescribing five years experience requirement for the bidders. Due to COVID-19 impact, the Government

¶31

4

¶32

amended the existing tender requirement through G.O.Ms.No.37 Water Resources (Reforms) department, dated 27.06.2025, extending the qualification period from five years to ten years to protect the contractors’ eligibility.

¶33

Respondent No.3, Superintending Engineer of the Tribal Welfare Engineering Department issued five tender notices requiring the bidders to have completed similar works in the last five financial years (2020-21 to 2024-25).

¶34

G.O.Ms.No.37 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh based on the recommendations of the Board of Chief Engineers and Finance Department concurrence. To address the COVID-19 pandemic’s severe impact on contractors, who lost eligibility due to reduced work from 2020 to 2022, the Government permanently extended the tender qualification period from five years to ten years, allowing the contractors to use a longer experience window when bidding for contracts. Despite G.O.Ms.No.37 mandating ten years qualification period, the respondents continued to issue tenders with five years eligibility, unfairly limiting the qualified bidders and restricting competition. The contractors made formal representations requesting to relax the required qualification from five years to ten years, but no action was taken by the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have issued tender notices demanding only five years of experience, violating the G.O.Ms.No.37

¶36

5

¶37

and creating inconsistency in tender qualification criteria and also preventing the petitioner and other contractors from participating in these tenders.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents herein.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, submits that though the petitioner herein made the representations to 2^nd respondent dated 27.07.2025 & 26.08.2025, 2^nd respondent has not passed any orders on the representations made by the petitioner herein.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, before finalizing the tenders, 2^nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, on the representations made by the petitioner herein, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶41

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

Date: 10.10.2025 MDP

¶44

_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

M/s. Rahul Builders, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Rahul Builders, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malladi Satyanarayana Srinivasa Chakravarthy, Vs The State of A.P.

M/s. Sri Venkata Sai D.Ed College Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Malladi Satyanarayana Srinivasa Chakravarthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medapalli Sujatha Vs Challa Chinna Venkataiah

Bharath Educational Society, Vs Sri Kona Sashidar, I.A.S.

Dada Khalandaria College of Education Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh