Telangana High Court
M/S. Trufa Enterprise Private Limited vs Peddisudershan Reddy on 21 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.533 of 2026
DATE: 21.05.2026
BETWEEN:
M/s Trufa Enterprise Private Limited,
Office at Plot No.3-898, Sri Swamy
Ayyappa Co-operative Society, Road
No.1, Madhapur, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500081 and two others
....Appellants
AND
Peddi Sudershan Reddy and 10 others
....Respondents
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin)
Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri B.Vamsidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants; Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel, representing
Sri T.P.S.Harsha, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Sri A.Yadav
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSEWIDC appearing for
respondent No.11; the Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing
for respondent Nos.2, 3, 9 and 10 and Sri T.Rajinikanth Reddy,
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.6,
7 and 8 and perused the record.
::2::
2. The present Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, assailing the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.40073 of 2025. By the
impugned order, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of
the underlying writ petition, directed the respondent No.5 to
conduct a detailed enquiry into the tender process relating to
the supply of bunker beds to Kasturba Gandhi Balika
Vidyalayas (KGBVs) and further ordered that the interim order
dated 23.01.2026 shall continue to remain in force pending
such enquiry. The appellants, being the successful bidders (L1
and L2) as well as the Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs), were aggrieved by the said order, as it effectively
nullifies the earlier binding judgment of this Court W.A.No.411
of 2026 dated 13.04.2026 arising out of W.P.No.38140 of 2025
dated 22.01.2026. The appellants claim to be also aggrieved by
the continuation of the restraint on the implementation of a
public welfare project.
Factual Matrix
3. The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Telangana,
Hyderabad, issued a tender notice vide Notice No.(NIT)
06/SS/2024-25 dated 26.04.2025, for the Supply,
::3::
Commissioning and Installation of 45,360 Bunker Beds with
mattresses and pillows to KGBVs across the State of Telangana.
The appellants herein were the successful bidders, ‘L1 and L2’
and the OEMs.
4. A challenge to the tender process, specifically to the
supplementary agreements dated 29.11.2025 was initially filed
by the Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden
Furniture Manufacturers Association and others in
W.P.No.38140 of 2025. A learned Single Judge of this Court
dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 22.01.2026,
holding inter alia that the delay was not attributable to the
bidders, that time was not the essence of the contract given the
presence of extension and liquidated damages clauses in the
tender document and that the petitioners, as non-participants
in the tender process lacked the locus standi to challenge the
tender. The learned Single Judge did not find any
arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality or favoritism in the
tender process.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said W.P.No.38140 of
2025, the petitioners therein filed W.A.No.411 of 2026. The
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Appeal
::4::
vide order dated 13.04.2026. The Division Bench categorically
held at Para No.12 as under:
12. This action of the authorities concerned cannot be found
fault with as those were all strictly in terms of the contractual
agreement at the first instance and secondly it was also within the
domain of the authorities concerned. There also does not appear to
be any substantial material available so as to establish the mala
fides on the part of the authorities concerned or any favoritism as
alleged to have been shown by respondent No.2 to respondent
Nos.6 and 7.
6. Thereafter, respondent No.1 herein (writ petitioner), an
Ex-MLA of Narsampet, Warangal District and Ex-Chairman,
Civil Supplies Corporation, Telangana, who had not
participated in the tender process, filed the underlying
W.P.No.40073 of 2026 with the prayer to declare the inaction of
the Central and State vigilance Commissions on his
representation dated 18.12.2025 as illegal and sought a
direction to the Vigilance Commission for registration of
complaint. It is significant to note that the writ petition did not
challenge the tender process, the award of contracts or the
supplementary agreements.
7. Despite the limited prayer in the writ petition, the writ
petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2026, seeking a restraint on the
execution of the tender. This interlocutory application filed
seeking restraint on the execution of the tender was filed on
::5::
22.01.2026, by way of lunch motion, significantly on the very
same day, on which, the learned single judge had dismissed
W.P.No.38140 of 2025. The said material fact of dismissal of
W.P.No.38140 of 2025 was suppressed. An ex parte interim
order, restraining the supply of beds was granted on
23.01.2026 in the said I.A.No.1 of 2026.
8. The learned Single Judge, by way of impugned order
dated 01.05.2026 disposed of the underlying W.P.No.40073 of
2026. The learned Single Judge inter alia held that primary
grievance of the writ petitioner regarding the representation was
substantially addressed as the Vigilance Commission had
forwarded the complaint of the writ petitioner to the School
Education Department. The learned Single Judge had directed
the respondent No.5 to conduct a detailed enquiry into the
matter and ordered that the interim order restraining the
execution of the tender will prevail.
9. Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants contended that the impugned order is a nullity,
inasmuch as it is a fundamental violation of judicial discipline
and the doctrine of judicial precedent. Learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the learned Single Judge had overreached and
::6::
nullified the binding findings of the Judgment of a Division
Bench in W.A.No.411 of 2026, which had conclusively upheld
the validity of very same tender.
10. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the writ
petitioner is a complete stranger to the tender process and had
never participated in the said tender. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that being a stranger, writ petitioner lacked the locus
standi to maintain a challenge to the tender. He relied upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Highways
Authority of India v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited 1
11. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge suffers from severe
internal inconsistencies, self-contradiction and perversity. The
learned Senior Counsel contended that the learned Single
Judge having held that the primary grievance of the writ
petitioners was addressed, ought not to have granted the relief
of conducting a detailed enquiry into the tender and continuing
the restraint on the execution of the tender, which have never
been sought by the writ petitioner in the writ petition.
12. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
continuation of the restraint order causes irreparable loss and
1
(2018) 8 SCC 243
::7::
injury to the appellants, who have manufactured 45,360
customized beds with Government logos. He further contended
that the order of the learned Single Judge is also detrimental to
the public interest inasmuch as thousands of young girl
students in KGBVs are compelled to sleep on the floor in the
absence of beds, which is the subject matter of the tender.
13. Per contra, Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner contended
that the writ appeal itself is not maintainable inasmuch as it is
filed against the order of an interlocutory nature, wherein the
learned Single Judge has not finally adjudicated the rights of
the parties. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the
learned Single Judge has merely directed an enquiry and
continuation of interim order pending such enquiry and this
direction does not finally determine the rights of the parties and
qualify as a Judgment against which a Writ Appeal under
Clause 15 of Letter Patent is maintainable.
14. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the
impugned order does not overreach or nullify the decision of the
Division Bench in W.A.No.411 of 2026, as the scope of the
present writ petition and the W.P.No.38140 of 2025 out of
::8::
which the W.A.No.411 of 2026 arises are entirely different. He
further contended that the W.P.No.38140 of 2025 was a
challenge to the tender process and the supplementary
agreements by Furniture Manufacturers Association which is
an interested party, whereas the present writ petition was filed
by a public spirited individual, who was a former public
representative, seeking administrative direction for a vigilance
enquiry to unearth corruption in the matter of procurement by
the state authorities.
15. Learned Senior Counsel distinguished the judgment relied
upon the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants i.e.,
National Highways (supra 1) by submitting that the said
principle applies only when a non-participant seeks to
challenge the commercial terms of a tender or derives a direct
benefit. He further submits that in the present writ petition,
there is neither challenge to the commercial terms nor the writ
petitioner derives any commercial benefits. On the contrary, the
writ petitioner seeks enquiry to ensure that the public
exchequer does not suffer heavy financial loss.
16. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the matters of
corruption, transparency and misuse of funds, the strict rule of
::9::
locus standi is relaxed. Any citizen can bring such irregularity
to the notice of the Court. He further submits that the
propositions founded on public interest jurisprudence are well
settled, namely that a person acting bona fide may maintain
proceedings seeking judicial interference in public duties,
particularly to ensure transparency in governmental action and
to prevent any financial loss to the State exchequer.
17. Learned Senior Counsel drawing the attention of this
Court to the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition that the representation dated 18.12.2026,
consideration of which was the subject matter of the writ
petition, points out two serious prima facie irregularities that
warrant a thorough investigation. He further contends that
there is a huge price escalation, in comparison with the bunker
beds previously supplied to other Government departments and
the rates quoted under the present contract. By way of a
statement contained in the written submissions/argument
note, learned Senior Counsel points out that the continuation
of the present tender process would result in a total loss of
approximately Rs.69,39,89,856/- to the public exchequer.
According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said amount
::10::
represents the financial loss likely to be caused to the State on
account of the continuation of the tender process.
18. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the
allegations contained in the representation are extremely
serious and go to the root of the matter. It is submitted that the
Vigilance Commission, in its counter affidavit, merely stated
that the complaint had been forwarded, without conducting any
meaningful enquiry into the allegations raised therein.
According to the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Single
Judge rightly exercised jurisdiction in directing a detailed
enquiry into the grave allegations of corruption. Learned Senior
Counsel further argued that the impugned decision of the
learned Single Judge does not amount to micro-management of
the enquiry process, but merely sets in motion a detailed
enquiry, which was absolutely warranted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
19. Learned Senior Counsel while answering the allegations of
suppression of material facts submits that the representation
dated 18.12.2025 was made prior to the dismissal of
W.P.No.38140 of 2025. He further contends that I.A.No.1 of
2026 in W.P.No.40073 of 2025 was necessitated on account of
::11::
the Vigilance Commission’s failure to act despite the interim
direction of the learned Single Judge. He further contends that
there is no bar to filing an application in a pending writ
petition. The learned Senior Counsel contends that where the
relief sought is distinct, an application has already been
decided, the appellants cannot allege abuse of process,
especially when the appellants themselves are seeking to thwart
a legitimate enquiry into the allegations of corruption.
20. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that
the balance of convenience lies in conducting a detailed
enquiry. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the
tender process cannot be allowed to be proceeded with when
there are serious allegations relating to price escalation and
favoritism. He contends that permitting the process to continue
without scrutiny would amount to a travesty of justice. It is
further contended that, if such allegations are ultimately proved
to be true and correct, the State would be left without any
effective mechanism to recover or regularize the loss caused by
the OEMs.
21. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the pleas of
irreparable loss, injury, or prejudice are wholly self-created,
::12::
inasmuch as the OEMs proceeded with the manufacture of the
bunker beds bearing the Government logo entirely at their own
risk. It is submitted that the tender process was already subject
to pending litigation as well as a vigilance complaint, and
despite being fully aware of such contingencies, the OEMs
voluntarily undertook the manufacturing activity. Therefore,
they cannot now seek equitable relief on the ground of alleged
financial loss or prejudice arising from consequences that were
knowingly assumed by them.
22. Learned Senior Counsel contends that real public interest
lies in ensuring transparency and probity in public
procurement and not in defeating the detailed enquiry ordered
by the learned Single Judge on technicalities. Learned Senior
Counsel also contended that a delay in the supply of beds is a
lesser evil than the greater loss to the state exchequer and
public trust.
Analysis and finding
23. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and examined the material on record, including
the impugned order of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.38140 of 2025, the Judgment of the Division Bench in
::13::
W.A.No.411 of 2026 and the written submissions of the
respondent No.1.
24. The question that falls for our consideration in the
present writ appeal is whether the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge to the extent it directed a detailed enquiry
into the tender and continuing the restraint on the execution of
tender can be sustained?
25. In the present case, the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge effectively overruled and nullified the binding
judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.411 of 2026. This, in
our view is the most glaring and fundamental flaw in the
impugned order. It is a basic and non negotiable principle of
judicial hierarchy that a learned Single Judge is bound by the
judgment of a Division Bench of the same High Court. To allow
a learned Single Judge’s order to indirectly overreach or nullify
the Judgment of the Division Bench would lead to judicial
anarchy and destroy the certainty of law. In the instant case,
W.A.No.411 of 2026 decided on 13.04.2026 (which arose out of
W.P.No.38140 of 2025) conclusively decided the following
issues:
::14::
i. That the decision to extend time and to enter into
supplementary agreement cannot be found fault with and
was strictly in terms of the contractual agreement and
within the domain of the authorities concerned.
ii. That there does not appear to be any substantial material
so as to establish the mala fides on the part of the
authorities concerned or any favoritism.
iii. The Division Bench by confirming the order of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.38140 of 2025 implicitly approved
the finding that the non participants lack locus standi to
challenge the tender process.
26. Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order,
was not only aware of these Judgments but had also recorded
the submissions of the respondents regarding their dismissal at
paragraph No.16 of the impugned order. Despite this
awareness, the learned Single Judge proceeded to direct a
detailed enquiry into the very same tender matter and
continued a restraint on its execution. The direction for a
thorough enquiry is a direct mandate to re-examine the issues
that have been conclusively adjudicated by the Division Bench,
which is a superior judicial forum. The continuation of the
::15::
restraint renders the findings of the Division Bench completely
nugatory. This is in our considered view is not in consonance
with judicial discipline. No learned Single Judge regardless of
the perceived merits of a new litigant’s case, has the authority
to sit in judgment over or issue directions that negate the
decision of the Division Bench.
27. It is well settled law that the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not to be invoked
for the purpose of a roving enquiry. In matters of public
procurement, the law is very clear – only the entities that
participated in the tender process can be allowed to make
grievances. The writ petitioner admittedly did not participate in
the tender process, and is neither a bidder nor an aggrieved
tenderer. The writ petitioner claims to be a public spirited
person and a former public representative. While the locus
standi of a public spirited person is recognized in certain areas
like Public Interest Litigation or Quo Warranto jurisdiction, the
present case apparently does not appear to be a bona fide
public interest litigation. It appears to be a veiled proxy
litigation filed with the singular objective of stalling a concluded
Government contract, which is precisely the kind of litigation
::16::
the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again cautioned to be
guarded against, more particularly in the matters of public
procurements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National
Highway (supra 1) held that only the entities who participate in
the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed
to make grievances about the non-fulfillment or breach of any
of the terms and conditions of the concerned tender documents.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that a party who chose
to stay away from the tender process cannot be heard and
cannot be allowed, in any manner, to whittle down the tender
process, adversely affecting the rights of the eligible bidder.
28. Learned Single Judge acknowledged that the writ petition
did not directly challenge the tender process. However, the
learned Single Judge nonetheless directed a detailed enquiry
into the tender process and continued the restraint order,
which effectively stopped the very execution of the tender. The
learned Single Judge, in our considered view, travelled beyond
the jurisdiction, by allowing a non-participant to cripple a
public contract by directing enquiry into the tender process.
This in our considered view, would set a disastrous precedent,
opening floods gates for endless litigation against concluded
::17::
Government tenders, which has the potential of destabilizing
the procurement and administration.
29. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the present writ
petition does not directly challenge the tender process and that
the relief sought in the writ petition is a direction to respondent
Nos.2 and 4 to act upon the representation. Learned Single
Judge also correctly observed that the writ jurisdiction of this
Court cannot be invoked to supervise or micro-manage the
manner in which the administrative enquiry is to be conducted.
Learned Single Judge also noted that interlocutory applications
cannot be used as a device to substantially transform the
nature of the proceedings or introduce entirely new causes of
action.
30. In spite of the above clear, correct and crucial findings,
the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass an order that is
entirely inconsistent with each of the findings/observations
made herein above. The learned Single Judge directed a
detailed enquiry into the tender matter by the respondent No.5,
which is an act of supervising and micro-managing an
administrative process. The learned Single Judge ought not to
have passed the direction of a detailed enquiry in a writ petition
::18::
that did not even challenge the tender process. The learned
Single Judge also directed continuation of the interim restraint
granted in an interlocutory application, thereby transforming
the very nature of the proceedings from a representation-centric
matter into a full-fledged tender litigation. The direction for a
detailed enquiry was not warranted, more particularly after the
primary grievance, admittedly, had already been resolved.
31. The appellants, acting in good faith and on the basis of
the concluded contract and after having their eligibility
validated by this Court in W.P.No.38140 of 2025 and
W.A.No.411 of 2026 have manufactured 45,360 bunker beds.
These beds are stated to be custom made and bear the
embossed logo of Government of Telangana and cannot be sold
in the open market. The continuation of the interim order
results in the appellants suffering irreparable and financial
injury, for which they have no legal remedy against the writ
petitioner, who is a private individual.
32. The public interest in the present case is not an abstract
or speculative concern. The tender pertains to the supply of
beds to young girl students residing in KGBV hostels, most of
who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. As a
::19::
direct consequence of the impugned order and the continued
restraint, these children are being compelled to sleep on the
floor, which directly concerns their health, dignity, safety, and
basic well-being. The public interest in ensuring that these
children are provided with proper beds for sleeping clearly
outweighs the speculative and unsubstantiated grievances
raised by third parties who have no direct stake in the tender
process. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge has
failed to balance the equities and has caused a grave
miscarriage of justice. The balance of convenience is
overwhelming in favour of the immediate execution of the
contract as public interest in the welfare of the students far
outweighs the speculative allegations of a non-participant.
33. Further, a detailed enquiry was already conducted by the
managing director of TSEWIDC/respondent No.11, whose
report dated 22.10.2025 is already on record. The said report
categorically found that the tender process was fair and that
the modified rates resulted in saving of about 7%
(approximately Rs.10.72 crores) to the Government. In our
view, the direction for a fresh detailed enquiry after the said
report has been made, is not legally untenable.
::20::
Conclusion
34. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned order dated 01.05.2026 passed in
W.P.No.40073 of 2026 by the learned Single Judge is legally
unsustainable.
35. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 01.05.2026 is set aside. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
____________________________
JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
Date:21.05.2026
gnp
