HYDERABAD: Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the tender process for supply and installation of bunker beds in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) schools across Telangana.
The petition was filed by the Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association and others.
The petitioners questioned the decision of state authorities to execute supplementary agreements with private contractors for the supply of 45,360 bunker beds along with mattresses and pillows. They contended that the original tender required completion within 120 days, but authorities executed supplementary agreements granting an additional 120 days without issuing a fresh tender.
According to the petitioners, the move was arbitrary, violated the original tender conditions and denied other manufacturers an opportunity to participate.
The association also alleged favouritism towards certain private respondents and claimed the contractors relied on the credentials of a common original equipment manufacturer to qualify for the tender. It further alleged inflated pricing and violation of procurement norms, including the General Financial Rules and guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission.
Opposing the plea, the state argued that the petitioners lacked locus standi as they had not participated in the tender process. It also said the supplementary agreements were within the tender conditions, which permitted extension of time and imposition of liquidated damages in case of delay.
After examining the record, the court held that there was no material to show the state’s actions were illegal, arbitrary or intended to favour any private party. It noted that the delay was largely due to administrative processes such as approval of colour codes and other procedural steps, and that the tender conditions allowed extension of time.
Referring to Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the court reiterated that judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited and courts should not interfere unless there is clear arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity.
Holding that the petition lacked merit, the court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim orders granted earlier.