The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the extension of a government tender for supply of bunker beds to KGBV schools, holding that non-participants in a tender process cannot challenge concluded contractual arrangements.
The petitioners, an association of small-scale manufacturers, had assailed supplementary agreements extending the time for execution of the contract, alleging arbitrariness, favouritism, and violation of tender conditions.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioners had neither participated in the tender process nor were they parties to the agreements in question. It reiterated the settled principle that only participating bidders can challenge tender conditions or outcomes.
The Court further observed that the challenge was belated, noting that the tender process had already concluded and contractual rights had crystallised. Interference at such a stage would unsettle concluded contracts and disrupt public procurement.
On merits, the Court found no arbitrariness or mala fides in the execution of supplementary agreements. It held that the tender conditions expressly permitted extension of time and imposition of liquidated damages, and therefore, time was not the essence of the contract.
The Court also rejected allegations regarding bidder eligibility and favouritism, holding that participation through authorised dealers of an established OEM satisfied the tender requirements.
Emphasising judicial restraint in contractual matters, the Court relied on settled Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that courts will not interfere in tender decisions unless there is clear arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of law.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and interim reliefs were vacated.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Designated Counsel, instructed by Mr. M. Pranav, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (State): Mr. T. Rajinikant Reddy, Additional Advocate General
For Respondent Nos. 4 and 5: Ms. B. Kavita Yadav, Standing Counsel
For Respondent Nos. 6 to 8: Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, Senior Designated Counsel, instructed by Mr. B. Vamshidhar Reddy, Advocate
