Dismissed¶31

M/s. Ap Reddy Civil and Electrical Contractors v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Feb 2025WP/3820/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (Surepalli Nanda J., 24.02.2025) in W.P. No. 3820 of 2018 - challenge to clubbing of five school/college building works into single tender package (NIT No. SE/TSEWIDC/HYDNIT/985/2017-18 dt. 18.01.2018, Package No.14, ECV Rs.57,49,06,245/-) by TSEWIDC in Nalgonda District - dismissed as infructuous, cause of action not surviving, no costs - no ruling on legality of tender bundling; interim stay application (IA No.1 of 2018, S.151 CPC) rendered moot.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, on the joint position that the cause of action no longer survives. ¶31

M/s. Ap Reddy Civil and Electrical Contractors Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, on the joint position that the cause of action no longer survives.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.2 in inviting tender NIT No. SE/TSEWIDC/HYDNIT/985/2017-18 dated 18.01.2018, clubbing the construction of five buildings (SW Residential Schools, Junior Colleges and Degree Colleges in Nalgonda District, Package No.14) into a single package of ECV value of Rs.57,49,06,245/-, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and whether respondent No.2 ought to be directed to receive and evaluate bids for individual buildings.

¶26

Court's answer

It was represented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause of action in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication any more.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The said submission that the cause of action does not survive was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶30

Key takeaways

Recording the petitioner's submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs; the merits of the challenge to the tender were not adjudicated.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) by a contractor challenging respondent No.2's (Telangana State Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation) tender NIT No. SE/TSEWIDC/HYDNIT/985/2017-18 dated 18.01.2018 for construction of SW Residential Schools, Junior Colleges and Degree Colleges at Kottangur, Anumula, Chandur, Miryalguda and Nalgonda in Nalgonda District under Package No.14, on the ground that clubbing five buildings into a single package of ECV value Rs.57,49,06,245/- was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, with a prayer to receive and evaluate bids for individual buildings. Held: on the joint representation of both sides that the cause of action no longer survives, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs; no adjudication on the merits of the challenge.

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3820 oF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. AP.Reddy civir and Erectricar contractors, Having its office at prot.No. 42,. Harithapuri Cotony, Gurramguda, ruio"ibri,^'ifinga Riloy fii.i;;i: Hyderabad - 501510. Rep by its erdprte{orn.Fia-Ofrahr ntOOv.---, -'-"'"',

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of reranoana. Rep by its secretary Higher Education Department Secretariat, Hyderalad

¶12

2 The Telangana state Education and werfare rnfrastructure Deveropment Corporation, Hyderabad. Rep by its fill"niging Direii6i.'

¶13

3 T-he_ Supe.ri nteld ing Eng i neer, Telanga na State Ed ucation and Welfare lntrastructure Development Corporati-bn. .^-'

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus to decrare the action of the respondent No. 2 in inviting tender bearing NIT No. SE/TSEWIDC/HYDN|T/9Bgt2O17-18, Dt. 1B_01_20i8 for the purpose of construction of SW Residential Schools, Junior Colleges and Degree colleges at Kottangur, Anumura, chandur, Miryarguda and Nargonda in Nargonda District under Package No. 14 by crubbing the construction of five buirdings into single package of ECV varue of Rs. 57,49,06,2 4st- as ifiegar , arbitrary, unconstitutionar and to consequenfly direct the respondent no.2 to receive and evaluate bids for individual buildings.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶17

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 issue interim directions o the respondent No.2 stay all further proceedings pursuant to notice inviting tender bearing Ntr no. SE/TSEWIDC/HYDNlr/985/2017-18, Dt. 18: 01-2018 for the purpose of construction of SW Residential schools, Junior Colleges and Degree Colleges at Kottangur, Anumula, Chandur, Miryalguda and Nalgonda in Nalgonda District under Package No. '14 pending disposal of the writ petition including opening of the bid documents.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. SUSHANTH REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATTON Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRI A. YADAV REDDY, The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I \

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶22

WRIT PETITIO N No.382O OF 2018

¶23

o ER:

¶24

Heard Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A. yadav Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶25

The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶26

" .... to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in inviting tender bearing NIT No. SE/ TSEWIDC/HYDNIT / 985 / 2Ot7 - 18, dated 1 8. 0 1. 20 18 for the purpose of construction of SW Residential Schools, Junior Colleges and Degree Colleges at Kottangur, Anumula, Chandur, Miryalguda and Nalgonda in Nalgonda District under package No.14 by clubbing the construction of five buildings into single package of ECV value of Rs.57,49,06 ,245/ - as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona I and to consequently direct the respondent No.2 to receive and evaluate bids for individual buildings and to pass...".

¶27

f t

¶28

¶29

It is represented by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the cause of action in the^present writ petition does not survive for adjudication any more.

¶30

The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶31

Bringing the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^petitions , if any,^pending in the \Ilrit^{petitio[crr^rr} ^r.^^{crandclrrsed-}

¶33

SD/.N. S RIHARI
//TRUE COPY// SI TANT REGI STRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 One CC to Sri R. Sushan eddy, Advocate loP
2 Two CCs to GP for l-{ ig Education,
Fis
hCo urt for the State of Telangana,
at Hyderabad [OUT] I
J Two CD Copies
T J ttI
P
g

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410212025

ORDER

1HE ST47 t o.
(
.<br>q
ko:r
2U,ljlll ffi ,j
c)
t

¶38

WP.No.3820 of 2018

¶39

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS