Peddi Sudershan Reddy vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Peddi Sudershan Reddy, a former MLA and Ex-Chairman of the Civil Supplies Corporation, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the Central Vigilance Commission (Respondent No. 2) and the State Vigilance Commission (Respondent No. 4), to register a vigilance complaint based on his representation dated December 18, 2025. The petitioner alleged inaction by these authorities. Subsequently, through interlocutory applications, the petitioner sought to broaden the scope of the petition to include a challenge to a tender/bid document (NIT No. 061/SS1/2024-25 dated April 26, 2025) and supplementary agreements dated November 29, 2025, alleging irregularities, price escalation, and loss to the public exchequer. He also sought to restrain further action on the tender and requested an independent valuation of the supplies.
Held
The Court held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to supervise or micro-manage administrative inquiries once the process has been initiated. It noted that the petitioner's primary grievance was the non-consideration of his representation. The Court acknowledged that the respondents, specifically Respondent No. 4, had examined the petitioner's complaint dated December 18, 2025, and forwarded it to Respondent No. 5 (Secretary to Government, School Education Department) on January 13, 2026, requesting an inquiry and appropriate action. The Court also took note of the dismissal of a previous writ petition and writ appeal concerning the same tender process. While the Court did not delve into the merits of the tender irregularities, it directed Respondent No. 5 to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter within a reasonable period and take necessary action. The interim order dated January 23, 2026, was to prevail until then. The Court emphasized that interlocutory applications cannot be used to substantially transform the nature of the proceedings or introduce new causes of action, and the relief must be determined based on the main petition's pleadings and prayer.
Key Issues
1. Whether the inaction of Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in registering a vigilance complaint based on the petitioner's representation dated December 18, 2025, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating settled principles of law, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the tender/bid document bearing Bid Notice No. (NIT) 061/SS1/2024-25 dated April 26, 2025, and consequential steps, including supplementary agreements dated November 29, 2025, are illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 failed to discharge their duties by not acting on his representation. He further argued that the tender process and subsequent agreements were tainted with illegality and arbitrariness, causing financial loss. He sought to have the tender cancelled and a vigilance inquiry initiated. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, through their counter-affidavits, explained the functioning of the Vigilance Commission, stating that complaints are examined and referred to administrative departments for inquiry. They also pointed out that similar issues regarding the tender process and agreements were previously litigated in Writ Petition No. 38140 of 2025, which was dismissed, and the subsequent Writ Appeal No. 411 of 2026 was also dismissed. They argued that interlocutory applications cannot fundamentally alter the nature of the original writ petition.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
orders or order. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 Between: 1. state vigilance commission, Represented by its commisioner, 2nd Floor, D- Block, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad- 500 063
State of Telangana, Represented by its secretary, school Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
State Project Director samagra Shiksha, Government of Telangana office at 1st Floor, Samagra Shiksha, Beside Telephone Bhavan, Hyderabad'
Director school Education, Government of Telangana, office at Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004
M/s. Trufa Enterprise Private Limited Office, at Plot No' 3€98, Sri Swamy Ayyappa Co-op Society, Road No. 1 Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081. 6. Telangana state Education welfare and lnfrastructure Development Corpoiation TSEWIDC, Represented by its Managing Director, LB Stadium Rd, Fateh Maidan, Abids, Hyderabad' Telangana 500001. ...PETITIONER /RESPONDENTS AND 1. Peddi Sudershan Reddy, S/ o. P. Raji Reddy, Aged 50 years, Occ Former M.L.A,Narsampet-l03,WarangalDist.Also,Ex.Chairman-Civilsupplies Corporation, Telangana R/o. 6-84, Block 7, Nallabelly (V and M)' Warangal - 506 349 ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND
Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry, of Finance, New Delhi.
Central Vigilance Commission, Represented by its Commissioner, Satarkta Bhavan, Block-A GPO Complex, INA New Delhi - 11()023
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), Represented by its Managing Director, Plot C-24, G Block, Bandra Kuria Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra 400051. 4. Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Education, New Delhi. Dr Rajendra Prasad Rd, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001
Department of School Education and Literacy, Samagra Shiksha Scheme - Ministry of Education, Shastri Bhavan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Rd, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 1'10001 .
M/s. Mafatlal lndustries Limited Office, at Mafatlal House, Sth Floor, HT parekh Marg, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020. 7. Methodex Systems Private Limited, Office at 607-608 Meghdoot g4, Nehru Place, New Delhi, Delhi, lndia - 1 1001 g. ...RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dated 23.01 .2023 in l.A. No.1 of 2026 in W p.N.o.400t3 of 2025 and dimiss the Writ Petition. co u nse I fo r the Petitio'"'' t#f,'l[i;.?.3rrT*r:fi"o u N s E L counsetfor the Respondent No.l,2,8&e : sRl IJJ"H,i"J^ttI"r,Hj Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Ms.UMA DEVI, SC FOR NABARD Counsel for the Respondent No.5TO7 : Gp FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.l3 : SRI A.yADAVA REDDY, SC FOR TSEWIDC Counsel for the Respondent No.10TO12 : SRI B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDy Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE Otr' TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 4OO73 OF 2025 oL.os.2026 Between: Peddi Sudershan Reddy Petitioner And Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Dell-ri & others Respondents ORDER: Petitioner states that he is the hrst Chairman o[ the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limitecl and that he rendered senices in the said capacity from 2OI4 to 2O17. It is stated, he is a formcr Member ol the irgisiative Assembly in the State of Teiangana from 2018 to 2023, during which time he also served as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee. By virtue of his public offices and responsibilitie s, he is well acquainted with mattcrs concerning public administration and public expenditure. 1. 1. [t is contended, during his tenure as Chairman of the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, he was responsible for implementing several benehcial reforrns. Such ) reforms included installation of CPS tracking sys-ems for paddy transportation vehicles and establishment and operationalization of on line paddy procurement management system, which, according to Petitioner, was the first of its kind in the country. | .
Petitioner further states that he ha s consistently been at the forefront of raising issues relating to public welfare and transparency in governance. He has been in public life for [hc past tq,enty three years, having initially sen.erl as a membcr of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency trom 2OC)1 to 2006 and thereafter, as the floor lcader of the Warangal Zilta parishad. He recently came to knou, zrbr;ul the alleged huge financial losses caused to the public exchequcr in connectton with a tcnder floatcd for the supply, commissioning and instalation of bunker beds with mattresses and pillows in Kasturba (]andhi Balika Vidyalayas in the State of Telangana. It is contended, the said tender lr'as issued by Respondent No.6, I .
The said tender was issued for the supply, commissioning and insrallation of 45,360 bunl:er beds with mattresses and pillows in 252 Kasturrba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas across thc State of Telangana_ The tt:nder involves expenditure of hunclrecls o[ crores ol rupees of public funds and _) therefore, required the highest degree of transparency, fairness and adherence to the prescribed tender conditions.
It is also contended, the tender specihcally stipulated a non-extendable completion period of 12O days. The tender also prescribed clearl5. ciefined milestones, provided for imposition of liquidated damages in case of delay and expressly prohibited participation of a bidder or an Original Equipment Manufacturer more than once in the same tender. Pursuant to lhe said tender, contracts rr.rere awardcd to Respondents 10 and 11 on 29.O5 -2025. lt is further contended, the contractual completion period for supply of the bunker beds expired after 12O days and Respondents 10 and 1 1 admittedly failed to suppty the beds in accordance with the terms of the tender. 1.5. lnstead of invoking the contractual remedies available under the tender conditions such as termination of the contract, forfeiture of security, blacklisting of the contractors or calling for fresh tenders, it is stated, Respondents chose to revive the same lapsed contracts by entering into the so-called supplementary agreements dated 29.11.2025. The said supplementary agreements were executed in re spect of the same quantity of 45,36O bunker beds with mattresses and pillows to be supplied to the KGBVs. By entering into such supplementary agreements, Respondents effectivel-y rewzrrded Respondents i0
4 and 1 1 despite their failure to perform within the stipulated time. Execution of supplementary agreements v/ithout calling for fresh cenders in an open and transparent m€Lnner is illegal and arbitrary.
Petitioner further sta.tes that no reasons whatsoever were recorded in the supplementary agreernents e:xplaining why fhe original contracts failed, why no action was taken against fhe defaulting bidders or why fresh tenders 'r,re re not called. Absence of any such reasons clearly indicates foul play and reflects an intention on the part of the official Respondents to distort the Lender process. Respondents IO and 1I, u,ho were declared as L 1 and L2 bidde rs re specLively, re lied upor-r the same Original trquipment Manufacturcr, namely Respondent No. 12, thereby enabling the same manufacturer to effectively participate twice in the same tcnder. [t is asserted, such partrcipation is in direct violation of Clause 13(f) of the tender conditions. It is further contencled, Respondent No. 1O, wLrich rrt'as declared as Ll bidder and awarded contrac,s worth more than Rs.121 Crores, rvas incorporated only in 202'2, whereas the tender mandated that the bidder must have been in existence for at least seven years. This lact renders the entire tender process suspect. It is also stated, similar bunker ted supplies in other Gorrernmer-rl departments were previousll- qcr !r r at 5 rates as low as Rs. 15,3O0 per unit, whereas the contracts in the present tender fix rates exceeding Rs.33,00O per unit. According to Petitioner, this has resulted in massive and . avoidable hnancial loss to the State exchequer. Petitioner further states that had fresh tenders been called with proper participation of MSMEs and open competilion, the State would have been able to secure signihcantly lower rates, thereby saving crores of rupees of public funds. I.7 . It is also stated, raising similar contentions regarding the irregularities in the tender process, the Telangana Small Scale [ndustries Steel an Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association along with its members filed Writ Petition No. 3814O of 2025 wherein this Court by order dated 11.12.2025, directed that sfdtus quo existing on that date shall be maintained Llll 18.12.2O25 and that the said order has been extended from time to time. Respondent No. 10 hled a counter affidavit on behalf of Respondenls 1l and 12 in the said Writ Petition which demonstrates that Respondents 10 Lo 12 are effective $ functioning as one unit. The said counter also discloses that the actual cost of bunker beds with mattresses and pillows to Respondent Nos. 1O to 12 ranges only between Rs. 15,600/- and Rs.17,2OO/- per unit excluding taxes, whereas the beds are being supptied to the Government under the tender
6 and supplementary agreements at prices exceeding Rs.33,00O/- per unit. It is contended, this results in dispro;rortionate and unjustifred profit margins. Respondents lO to 12 lnave provided frivolous reasons to justif5, execution of :rupplementary agreements without calling for fresh tenders.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and documents, which were widely circulated and reported in newspapers, and also considering that renegotiatior-r o[ prices a[ter conclusion of a contract is strictly prol-ribitcd under the Central Vigilance Commission guidelines and thc General Financial Rules, it is stated, Petitioner approached Rcspondents 1l and 4 by submitting a complaint dateC 18 . 12.2025 r,r,hich requested registration of a vigilance case in respecL of the llleged loss to the State exchequer of nearly Rs. lO0 Crores arising from escalation of the unit price of bunker bedsr from about Rs. 15,OOO/- to more than R-s.33,000/-.
Petitioner further states that Respcndent No. i3 submitted a report regarding the discrepancles lnd increased prices quoted by Respondents 10 to 12. The said report attempted to justit5, Lhe price differential on the erroneous assumption that M/s Shanti Kunj Infrastr-ucture LLp is a non- prollt entity, though it is admittedly not so. [t is also asser[ed, such reasoning fr-rrthcr demon strates the co-, of 7 Respondents in ensuring that Respondents 10 to 12 secure the tender. Petilioner reiterates that the cost price of bunker beds with mattresses and pillows to Respondents 10 to I 2 is only between Rs. 15,600/- and Rs. 17,2OOl- per unit, whereas the same are being supplied at prices exceeding Rs.33,000/ - per unlt. 1.1O. Petitioner further contends that since the funds payable to Respondents 1O to 12 under the tender ald supplementary agreements are paid from the funds of Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 is obligated and has the juri ictiore to enquire into the legitimacy and genuineness of the transaction. The exaggerated pricing coupled with the arbitrary execution of supplemcntary agreements despite clear breach of the tender conditions and failure to supply ivithin the stipulated period clearly indicates that the State and the public exchequer have suffered signihcant loss due to the allegedly collusive conduct of the Respondents. Notwithstanding the pendency of other proceedings relating to the tender, Respondents 2 and 4 lrave the juri iction and duty to examine the circumstances relating to the tender since the issues raised relate to alleged corruption in public procurement. Despite the detailed complaint and representation dated la.12.2025, -9
8 Respondents have not taken any steps nor have they demonstrated any willingness to act upon the said complaint. 1 . 1 i . Petitioner furtl-rer states that the tender ir-r question relates to .facilities intended fcrr young children studying in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas- It is therefrrre, necessary that enquiries into the alleged irregularities be conducted at the earliest so as to ensure minimum disruption to th,: well-being of the children. Respondents 2 aod 4 have not taken any steps to conduct any enquiry despite the urgency and the financial Iosses involved. Delayed cnquiry would render th<: investigation redundant due to passage o[ time and r,r,ould cause inconr.enience to the children. Thc complaint and r-epresentation dated 18.12.2025 i,rrerc comrnltnicatecl to Responrlcnts through e mail dated 19.12.2025 zrnd througir India Post.
Respondent No.4 hied counter star-ing that tJle Vigilance Commission functions as an advisory atrthority to the Government of Telangana. Any advice rendered b1. rhe Vigilance Commission may either be foltowed by the :rdministrative department concerned or the department may deviate from such advice in accordance rr,ith the 'lelangana Governnrent Business Ruies and Secretariat inst ructions. It is therefore, .ontended, its role is limited to tende ring advicc in vigilance rt.lated matters and that the ultimalc decision Lo act upon suctr advi^
9 with the concerned administrative authorities of the Government-
Respondent No.4 further states that whenever complaints are received from members of the general public, the Vigilance Commission examines the contents of such complaints and thereafter, refers the same to the administrative department concerned in the Secretariat or to the appropriate investigating ageucies such as the Anti-CorrupLion Bureau (ACB), Vigilance and Enforcement (V&E) Department or the Crime Investigation Department (CID) for conducting enquiry and subrnitting a report in the matter. Upon receipt of such reports from the authorities concerned or investigating agencies' the Vigilance Commission examincs the same and thereafter, tenders appropriate advice to the administrative departments concerned.
Respondent No.4 contends that the Vigilance Commission cloes not itself conduct investigations or enquiries' The Comrnission is only an advisory authority which tenders advice on matters involving vigilance aspects as and when such matters are referred Lo it by the Secretariat departments' The Vigilance Commission does not possess any executive powers' nor does it have the infras[ructurc or mechanism to conduct independent enquiries or investigations' According to r0 Respondent No.4, the respective Government clepartments are the competent authorities to dcal with matters relating to the subjects falling under their respective administrzrtive control.
Respondent No.4 further states that with regard to the allegation made b5r Petitioner concerning :naction on the complaint dated 18. 12.2025, the said allegation is incorrect and contrary to the factual position. Upon receipt and examination of the complaint dated 1g. l2.2O2S along with the related petitions dated 30. t2.2O2S and 3 1 . t2.2O2S , the Vigilance Commission forwarded copies of Lhe same to the Secretary, School Education Departrnent, Dr. B_R. Amberlkar Telangana conducting cnquiry. and taking . Thc i'orr,arding ol the complaint thc administrative departrnent concerned was done through l,etrer dated 13 01.2026. lL is therefore, contended that appropriate action $/as taken on the complaint submitted by petitioner bJ, fc,rrwarding the same to the competent authority for enquiry and nccessary action. 2.4 . By forwarding thc complaint dated Ia.12.2O25 to the administrative departmerlt concernecl and tendering advice in the matter, the cluty cast upon thc Vigitance Commis sion stands discharged. Responclent No.5, being tlte execr_rtive authority concerned in the matter, is the competc I r ar, , ,_ Secretariat, Hyderabad, fbr necessaty action in the matter and reiated petitions to II take further action on the complaint. It is therefore, stated that the discretion to act upon the advice tendered by the Vigilance Commission or to take appropriate action in accordance with law lies with the said executive authority. In view of the action already taken by the Vigilance Commission in forwarding the complaint and tendering aclvice to the concerned department, no cause of action survives against Respondent No.4 in the present Writ Petition.
Respondents 5 Lo 7 also hled counter affidavit contending that the presenl Writ Petition is frivolous in nature and has been filed with an ulterior motive to stall the process of providing bunker beds to girl students studying in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya institutions. Thc said Respondents submit that the filing of the prescnt Writ Petition is an atternpt to obstruct the implementation of a welfare measure intended for girl students residing in KGBV hostels. The representation made by the Petitioner before the Vigilance Commission is baseless and that the present Writ Petition has been filed without placing the complete facts before this Court. It is also contended, Petitioner failed to narrate the entire sequence of events and the various steps taken by the State with regard to the tender floated for suppty, commissioning and installation of bunker beds.
t2
I . It is stated, tire averments made by Petitioner merely refer to the self-claimed reputation and past positions held by him and have no relevance whatsoever to the issues involved in the present case. Petitioner, who claims to have been a pubiic representative for several years, ought to have acted with greater responsibilitlr and ought not to have filed frivolous representations and Writ Petitions. It is further stated, the allegations with regard to the alleged financial loss to the public exchequer are incorrect. No loss whatsoever has treen caused Lo the public exchequer as a result of the tender lioatcd by the State for supply, comrnissioning and installation ol bunkcr beds in KGBV institutions in the St.ate o[ Telargana. The t.ender process was conducted in a completcly transparcnt ntanner and strictly in accordance with the applicable norms.
It is stated further, the present Wrjt Petition has been hled as a smoke screen with the obliclue motive of extending benefit to certain third parties u,ho had unsuccessfully challengecl the tender process ir, Writ Petition No. 38 l4O of 2025. Petitione r is attempting tc raise similar issues through the present Writ Petition after the said challenge was unsuccessfui. The allegations made by Petitioner relate to extcnsion of time granted by the State for ext--cution of t[-re contract through supplemenlarl agreementil. said
l3 Respondents contend that the issues raised by Petitioner in this regard are purely contractual in nature. Petitioner, who did not participate in the tender process, has no locus whatsoever to question the grant of extension o[ time.
Respondents 5 to 7 further state that the delay in execution of contract occurred due to the need for linalization of colour codes for the bunker beds and also due to the requirement of obtaining reports from schools across the State ensuring optimum and effective utilisation of available space in KGBV institutions. The plea relating to delay in execution of the contract had already been considered and rejected by this Court in the above Writ Petition by order dated 22.01.2026. It is contended, the allegations made by Petitioner regarding tlre eligibility of Respondents 10, 11 and 12 are based on an incorrect reading of the tender document and he attempted to mislead this Court by creating an impression that the State awarded the tender to ineligible companies. 3.4 . It is further stated, petitioner reiied upon Clause 13(f) of the tender document while suppressing the provisions contained in Clause 16(IX) of the tender conditions. Clause 16(IX) clearly provides that wirere dealers or agencies o[ an Original Equipment Manufacturer participate in the tender, the turnover of both the OEM and the agency shall be taken into )
t4 consideration. Therefore, it is contended, the allegation regarding ineligibilit5r of the bidders is unfounded. The allegation regarding financial loss to the public exchequer on account of difference between the rates of Rs.1S,3O0 f - ter unit and Rs.33,0OO/- per unit is macle without placing the :omplete facts before this Court. The price of Rs.15,3O0/- re lied upon by Petitioner pertains to supplics made in 2O2l a.nd. does not include the costs asscciatecl with transportation, commissioning, ir-rstallation, supply of pillou,s arld mattresses and provision of warranty for a period of five years 3-5. The issucs raised by Petitioner in thc present Writ Petition n ere also raised earlier in Writ petition No. 38 14O ot 2O25 and that the said Writ petition was ,lismissed on 22.01 .2026. Though the present Writ petition was filed on 24 .12.2025 and this Court had passed an rn terim order directing Respondents 2 and 4 to consider the representation of Petitioner, he filed I.A. No. t ol 2026 on 22.Ol.20I)6, which was on the very same day on r,r.hich the coordinate 3ench of this Court had listed the Writ petition for pronc uncement of j udgmen t.
Respondents 5 to 7 further state that the certihed copy ol the order in Writ tJeLition No. 3g140 of 2025 is awaited. It is stated, the affidavit filed in support o[ the prescnt Wrir_
l5 PetiLion does not explain how Petitioner came to know about the lrling of Writ Petition No. 38140 of 2025 or the reasons for relying upon materials filed in that Writ Petition. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2026 by way of a lunch motion oo 22.01.2026 without disclosing that the coordinate Bench had already reserved orders in Writ Petition No. 38140 of 2025 on 09.0I.2026 and had indicated that the judgment would be pronounced on 22 .O L .2026. 3.7 . The arguments now sought to be raised by Petitioner were already advanced in Writ Petition No. 3814O o[ 2025 and were rejected by this Court. IL is therefore, contended, Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same arguments again by relying on the very same material. It is also stated, after receiving the allegations relating to pricing, the State called for a third-party report from TSEWIDC regarding the rates quoted under the tender. After examining the report submitted by TSEWIDC and after further reduction of the rates by the suppliers, the supplementary agreemcnts were entered into. Petitioner failed to include essential cost components such as instaliation and commissioning of bunke r beds along with supply of pillows and mattresse s wh ile making allegations rcgarding pricing. )
16
Respondent Nos.S to 7 further stale that similar allegations were raised earlier in Writ Petition No.38140 of 2025 and were rcjected. After dismissal of the said Writ Petition, petitioner ought to have brought the said fact t() the notice of this Court. The representation made by Petitioner seeking enquiry into alleged discrepancies does not contain any supporting evidence and is vague in nature. Petilioner, who did not participatc in thc [ender process, cannot m:rke allegations regarding breach of tender conditions or cxecution of supplementary agreements. The allegation of collusion between Respondents is a su,eeping allegation rnade withort an5, proof. It is reiterated, similar allegations u,ere raised in Writ PetiLion No. 38140 ot 2O25 and r.r,ere rejected b5u this Court. 3.9 . Altl'rough Petitioner clairns to herve submitted representation to Respondents 2 to 4, proof of s;ervice of such representation has not been hled before this Oourt. Without filing proof oI service, Petitioner cannot se:k a rvrit o[ mandamus directing cousideration of the .:epresentation. Petitioner in the main prayer seeks only a direction for consideration ol the representation dated 18.12.2025 by Respondcnts 2 and 4. However, through I.A. No.1 of 2026, he sought Lo restrain Rcspondents from supplying tunker beds to l7 girl students residing in KGBV hostels, which is beyond the scope of the main relief sought in the Writ Petilion. 3.1O. Respondents 5 to 7 further state that even assuming that Respondents 2 and 4 have not considered the representation submitted by Petitioner, such alleged inaction cannot operate to the detriment of the State Government which floated the tender or the girl students studying in KGBV institu[ions across the State. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the prices quoted by the supplie rs are cxcessive and the suppliers are undulS, cnriched, the same can be rccovcred from the suppliers upon conclusion of the enquiry by the Vigilance Commission. The studcnts of KGBV institutions should not bc subjected to hardship merely because of alleged detay in consideration of the representation submitted by the Petitioner.
The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of Petitioner. On the contrary, any interference with the tender process rvould adversely affect the interests of the State Govcrnment and the girl sl-udents studying in KGBV institutions who require the bunker beds along with mattresses and pillows.
Respondents 1O to 12 also hlcd a countcr stating that Respondent No-6 issued a tender vide Bid Notice No. (NIT) .\
r8 06ISS/2024-25 dated 26.04:2025 inviting bicLs for supply, commissioning and installation of bunker bed,; in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas in the State of Tclangana. The starting date for submission of bids w,as 3O.O4.2O25 and the last datc and timc lor submission of on lin.e bids was 14.05.2025. The period prescribed for completion of the scope of work under the tcnder u,as 12O days. As pt:r thc tender conditions, bidders, rvl-rich inclucled manulac turing hrms, companics, authorizccl dcale rs or suppliers, u,ere rr:quired to be registered under Lhc Conrpanies Act, 1956 or tlre Companies Act, 20 l3 and rnust havc bccn in existence for ,r period of at least seven years with :r valid registratio-r ccrtihcate_ Respondcnts i0 ancl I1 cmcrgcci as the success ul bidders in the tendcr proccss atrcl Respondent No.12 is the Original trquipment Manufacturer- for the bunker beds.
It is furthcr contended that Respondents 1O and 11 are authorized suppliers ol Respondcnt No_ 12, which is the Originat Equipment N,[anufacturer estabtished in l96O; the eligibility criteria stipulatcd in the tender conditions regarding existence of scvcn -vcars werc duty satished by virtuc of the participation of thc Original Equipment Manufacturer. After completion of the tendtr process, Respondent No.6 issued Letters of Acceptancc clated 2O.O5.2025 to Respon<lents 1O and l9
Thereafter Respondent No.6 entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 10, who was declared the LI bidder, vide Agreement No.Oal55/2024-25 dated 29.O5.2025 for the supply, commissioning and installation of bunker beds with a total contract value of Rs. 13O,O 1,99,O4O/- inclusive of 18% GST.
It is also stated, Respondent No.6 also entered into another agreement with Respondent No.1l, who was declared L2 bidder, uide Agreernent No.O6lSS/ 2024-25 dated 1O.O6.2025 for supply, commissioning and installation of bunker beds with a total contract value of Rs.32,50,49,760/ - inclusive of l\o/o GST. In view of the scope of work under the tender, Respondent No. 10 on 21.06.2025 addrcssed e rnail to Respondent No.7 seeking approval for finalization o[ color codes for the bunker beds to be supplied to the KGBV institutions. The said e mail containe d three priority color codes for approval. When no communication was received from Respondent No.7 regarding approval of the colour codes, Respondent No.11 addressed letter dated 24.06.2025 to Respondent No.7 requesting approval of the proposed colour codes for the bunker beds.
Respondents 7O to 12 further state that Respondent No.7 issued proceedings vide Letter dated 25. Ll.2025 approving the colour codes and the logo to bc uscd on the bunker beds. The color-rr scheme of dark brown and cream was approved for )
20 bunker beds to be supplied under the tender. Rer;pondent No.6 subsequently issued revised Letter of Acce rtance dated Oa.11.2O25 wherein the contract values u,erc renegotiated in vier.r, of the reduction in steel prices. A supplementary agreement was entered into between Respondr:nt No.6 and Respondent No.11 on 29.Ll.2025 whereby contract value was reduced from Rs.32,5O,49,760 / to Rs.3O,36,O3 5521- due to the fall in s[eel price s. Respondent No.6 alsc e ntered into a supplementary agreement witl-r Rcsponclent No. l0 uide Agreement datcd 29. 11,.?,O25 whereby contract value was reduced from Rs. 130,O1,99,04()/- to Rs. l2l,44,I4,2Oal- ou'ing ln the [all in st(.cl L-\riccs.
Therealier, it is sraled, Respondents tO and 11 commenced the process of dclivcry and installation of bunker beds in the concerned schools and that part of the work had already been completed by 11.12.2025. The er-rtire units of bunker beds had aireadl, been inanufactured and were ready for delivery and installatior-r. During the course of suppiy and installation o[ bunker becls, Writ Petition No.38 140 of 2025 was filed b1, the Te langana Small Scale [ndustrie s Stce I and Wooden Furnilure Manufacturers Associatiorr along with certain other industriei c[-rallenging ttre supplernentary agre,]ments dated 29.11.2025. This Court initially granlecl an order of stdtus quo
2l on 11.12.2025. The primary contentions raised in that Writ Petition were that supplementary Agreements could not be executed after expiry of period of 12O days, Respondents 10 to 12 were not eligible under the tender conditions and that they were allegedly making excessive prohts.
After hearing the parties, in detail, the coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed Writ petition No. 3g14O of 2O2S by dictating judgment in open Court on 22_O L.2026. The Court held that delay in approval of colour codes could not be attributed to Respondents 10 to 12 and further, observed rhat under Clauses 25 and 26 of ne tender document, the time for completion of work could be extended subject to imposition of liquidated damages and tl'rerefore, time could not be treated as the essence of the contract. The Court also observed that a non- participant could not challenge the supplementary agreement. Thereafter, the present Writ Petition was hled seeking action on the representation dated La.L2.2025 submitted to Respondents 2 and 4 for registration of a vigilance complaint. Respondents 1O to 12 further state that along with Writ Petition, Petitioner filed I.A. No.1 ol 2025 seeking a direction to Respondents 2 and 4 to consider the representation dated 18. 12.2025 in a time- bound manner. ,')
7_2
It is further contend that the praycr rsought in I.A. No.1 of 2026 is beyond the scope of the main prayer in the Writ Petition which is limited to se eking consideration of the representation dated 18.12.2025 and registration o[ a vigilance complaint, whereas the interim application seeks to stay the execution of the tender itself. Petitioner is a stranger to the tender process and has no locus stondi to challerrge the tender or seek interference with con Lractual mattcrs, having not participated in thc ter-rder. I t is a settied principle of law that a non-participant cannot challenge thc tcnder proc3ss. They rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in No:tional Highwags Authoritg of Indio. u. Gwalior Jho,nsi Expresswag Limitedl as well as decisions of the Bonrbay High Court in Writ Petition No.9B37 of 2022 and connccted maLters to contend that interference in tender mattcrs al, the instance of a non- participant is not permissible, 4.7 . Respondent Nos. 10 to 1 2 further ritate that the delay in execution of contract cannot be attribut,:d to them as the delay occurred clue to late approval of coiour codes by the authorities and that ttrc tender conclition thcrr,selves permit extension of time for completion. A cornplaint had earlier been made on 27.05.2025 alleging excessive pricin6i and that a ' (2018) I scc 243
2l committee was constituted to enquire into the said complaint. The committee submitted its report on 22.10.2025 observing that tender process hacl been conducted fairly ald in accordance with the applicable norms. The committee report also recorded that Respondents 10 and 11 agreed to execute the work at a modihed rate resulting in savings of approximately 7%o, arn.oluIlLing to about Rs.1O.72 crores, and cancellation of the tender would lead to considerable delay in supply of bunker beds. 4.8- Following the committee report, a revised Letter of Intent was issued on OB.Ll.2025 and thereafter, supplementary agreements dated 29 .l I .2025 we re executed. Petilioner attempted to stall execution of tcnder w.orks despite being aware thal- tender relates to supply o[ bunker beds to school children. Due to the interim order passed by this Court, students in KGBV institutions are compelled to sieep on the floor and are deprived of proper facilities. It is stated, interference with execution of Lender would result in wastage of raw materials, labour and resources since the bunker beds have already been manufactured with the Telangana Government logo. )
24
Petitioner hled repl-y denying all th e contentions raised in the counter afhdavit filed by Respondent No.4 in their entirety except those specifically admitted. It is contended, a bare perusal of the counter affidavit revea[:; a complete abdication of statutory responsibility on the part c,f the Vigilance Commission to conduct vigilance enquiries despite the fact that the Commission had itself sought a rcport from the concerned department. Petitione r contends tha t hc is no(. aware of the allthorization granted to thc Secretary of Rcsponctent No.4 to represent the Vigilar-rce Comrnissioner, pzrrticullrly when the deponent has atte mpted Lo portray Responden t No.4 as an authority having r-ro subslar-itive functions and has sought to divest the commissir.rn of its statlrLon, powers and re sponsibilities.
It is stated, the denials contained in the counter affidavit of Respondent No.4 are vague ald consti tute mere bald denials without addressing the specific allegations raised in the writ petition. The stand taken by Responde nt No.4 that Vigilance Commission is merely an advisory alrthority to the Government of Telangana is incorrect and contrary to the very scheme governing the Vigilance Commission. Even on the blfieirl rvebsite of the Vigilance Cornmission, under the heading "Juri iction and Functions", it is clearly strLed that the 25 Vigilance Commission has the pon'er to cause arl enquiry into any transaction in which a public se rvant is suspected of having acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner.
Petitioner further contends that Vigilance Commission is empowered to enquire into complaints alleging corruption, misconduct, Iack of integrity, malpractices or other forms of misconduct on the part of public servants, including acts amollnting to criminal misctlnduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Vigilance Commission is also empowered to cati for records, rcports and statements from government departments, govcrnment undertakings and autonomous bodies in ordcr lo ex<'rcise supervision over vigilance and anti-corruplion work. The Vigilance Commission is also empowered to direct the Anti-Corruption Bureau to register a regular criminal case and inves[igate the matter, or alternatively to entrust the complaint to the concerned department or pubtic unciertaking for enquiry' Though recommendations of Vigilance Commission may be advisory in nature, any proposal by the Government to deviate from the advice of the Commission must be placed before the Chief Minister through the Chiel Secretary in accordance with the Government Business Rules. )
26
Petitioner therefore contends that Responden[ No.4 cannot now take a stand that it cioes not possess any powcrs and is merely an advisory authority when the .,<:ry governing scheme of the Vigilance Commission confers upon it signihcant powers to initiate enquiries into allegations of corruption and misconduct involving public servants_ The assertion of Respondent No.4 that it merely rcceives complaints and forward s them to othcr authorities; rvithout zrny responsibility to pursue the matter is con trar1, r o thc Vigilzurce Manual and undermines the entire purposc for u,hich .he Vigilancc Commission has been establishcrl. CIause 3(i) of Chapter II oi the Vigilance Manual clearl.1, provicjes that cornplaints allcging corruption, misconduct or iack ol integrity on the part of public servants or employees o[ government undcrtakings may bc made dircctly to thc Vigilancc Commission. It is thercfore, contendecl that Respondent No.4 has juriscliction and authori[z to investigate the comprlaint submilted by petitionc r and cannot disclaim rcsponsibility by stating that it lacks exer utive powers or infrastructure to conduct enquiries. 5-4. Petitioner firrther contends thert thc action ol Respondent No.4 in loru,arding the cornplaint to Respondent No.5 itsctt demonstrates that Responcicnt No.4 had formed an .._ o_pinion that the complaint discloscrl mattcrs re qurring enquiry
27 and further action. Clause 3(viii) of Chapter II of the Vigilance Manual provides that where the Vigilance Commission forms an opinion that action is required on a complaint or information received, the Commission may entrust the complaint for preliminary enquiry to the concerned administrative department, Chief Vigilance Ofhcer or the vigilance ofhcer of the concerned depar[ment or undertaking. Forwarding of the complaint to Respondent No.S by letter dated 13.O1.2026 clearly indicates that Vigilance Commission had formed an opinion that an enquiryv\.as necessary in the presen[ case.
Peti[ioner lurther states lhat once the Vigilance Commission forms such an opinion and entrusts the matter for enquiry, the procedure prescribcd undcr the Vigilance Manual must necessarily be fotlowed. The Vigilance Manual provides a detailed mechanism requiring the concerned departrnent to conduct a preliminary enquiry, verify the allegations and submit a report in the prescribed format to the Vigilance Commission along with the relevant records. It is stated, upoa receipt ol preliminary enquiry report, the Vigilance Commission is empowered to take furLher action including directing registration of a criminal case by the Anti-Corruption Bureau or initiating departmcntal proceedings against the officials concerned. )
28
Petitioner therefore, states that contention of Respondent No.4 that its responsibilitv ceased uJron forwarding the complaint to the concerned department is whoily incorrect and contrary to the procedure prescribed in the Vigilance Manual. The conduct of Respondent No.4 amounts to abdication of juri iction and failure to dischargr: the statutory responsibilities entrusted to the Vigilance Commission. According to Petitioner, such abdication o[ responsibilit5r is detrimer-rlal to the statutory framework intcncled to ensure vigilance oversight and a corruption-free administr-ation_
Petitioncr tlrther states Lhat counLer affldavit hted b5, RespondcnLs 5 to 7 is also Cenied in its cniirety and the assertions made therein .rre vagllc and baselcss. l-hc conduct of Respondent Nos.S to 7, particularly the urgency ,lisplayed only after the interim order dated 23.01.2026 and noL after the earlier order dated 3O. 12.2O25, demonstrate s Lhe necessity of conducting a vigilance crrquiry into the ter-lder prccess invoh,ing Respondent Nos. l0 to 12. It is also contendecl, tLe stand taken by Respondents 5 to 7 itself indicates collusior: betu,een tlre official responden ts zrnd Respondents I O to 1 2 , particularll, when their counter attr.ibutes the delay in execution of the tender to the officiat respondents but the offrcial responclents have not denied or explained such <1elay.
29
Petitioner further states that counter o[ Respondents 5 to 7 itself reveals several irregularities in the tender process. The said respondents failed to explain the five- month delay betwee n 21.O6.2025 / 24.06.2025 and 25 - | 1.2025 in approving the colour codes for the hunker beds, which delay exceeds the contractual completion period of 120 days. Respondents 5 to 7 have not addressed the specilic allegation that the tender conditions required thc bidder to have been in existence for at least seven years, whereas Respondent No. 1O was incorporated only in the year 2022.
Petitioner further contends that Respondent Nos.S to 7 have also failed to re but the allegation regarding the substantial price difference bet'"vecn Lhe cost of bunkcr beds procured by Respondent Nos. 1O to 12, w'hich is stated to be approximately Rs.15,3OO/- per unit, and the price charged to the Government which exceeds Rs.3O,000/- per unit. According to Petitioner, failure of the ofhcial respondents to address this issue demonstrates that Respondents 1O Lo 12 are deriving excessive proEts at the cost of the pubtic exchequer. PcLitioner therefore, submits that colrnter aff-rdavit hled by Respondents 5 to 7 itself indicates that thcre has been significant loss to the public exchequer arising out of thc tender process and that it is therefore necessary that the transactions relaling to Lhe tender )
30 be investigated ancl appropria[e action be takt:n against the persons responsible. Petitioner lurther corrtends that the necessity of such investigation is reinforced by the fact that Respondent No.4 had already issued letter dat,:ri 13.01.2026 directing Respondent No.S to conduct enquiry ir..to the matter. Despite such direction, Respondents S to 7 herve filed the counter without conducting any enquirlr and rvithout even placing the said communication bcfore this Court. 6-3. Petitioner further alleges that the sland takcn by Respondcnts 5 to 7 [hal any excess paymeltt made to Respondents iO to 12 r:an be recor,,e red latcr cit:rronstrates a mechanical and r-rr-rjr-rstiliecl attempi tir protccl. Re sponclents l0 l.o 12 l>y permilting- payrnents [o I-Jc made at all( gccil-\. ir-rflatcd priccs u'ithout first de te rmining tl-re correctncss of the pricing. It is thcrefore, contended, the conduct of Respondents 5 to 7 in attempting to justify the payments proposed to be made to Respondents 1O to 12 clespitt- thc scrious allegations raised in the representation dated 18.12.2025 further demonstrates the need lor an indepcndent vigilance e nquiry into thc cntire te nder process.
Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senror Counsel assisted by Sri TPS Harsha, lear.necl corrnsel for 1te itioner, SmL. N.V.R. Rajyalakslrnti, lcarncd Stitr-rrling Counsel lor CcnLral
3t Government on behalf of Respondents I, 2, B and 9, Ms. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for NABARD, learned Government Pleader for School Education on behalf of Respondents 5 to 7 and Sri A. Yadava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSEWIDC on behalf of Respondent No. 13 and Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 10 to 12. 8. The principal relief sought is to declare the alleged inaction of Respondents 2 and 4 on the representation dated 18.12.2025 submitted by Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequenlly to direct the said respondents to register a vigilance complaint and to take action in accordance with law. From this, it is evident that the scope of the present Writ Petition is limited Lo examining whether the competent authorities, particularly Respcndents 2 and 4, h.ave failed to consider the represcntation dated 18.12.2025 ar'd whether such alleged inaction warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Petitioner has sought to project the mat[er as involving large-scale irregularities irr the tender process relating to supply, commissioning and installation of bunker beds in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas in the State of Telangana. According to Petitioner, tender process and subsequenL 2 "'
supplementary agreements allegedly resulted in substantial financial loss to the public exchequer and therclore, warranted initiation of vigilance proceedings. However, it is necessary to note that the present Writ Petition, as frarned, do,:s not directly challenge the tender process, award of contracts t() Respondents 1O and 1 1 or the supplementary agreements datr:d 29.11.2025 entered into betwecn the auLhorities and the saiC contractors. The relief sought is confined to a clirect.ion to Resp,tndents 2 and 4 to act upon the rcprcscniation datecl 18.12.2O2= submitted by Petitioner- Therefore, the central question that arises for consideration is whether there has been any failure on the part of the Authorities lo <:orrsicler tlle reDresenlation and w,hethcr such alleged inaction .1trs t ific s is:;tr:rncr: r-,ia ivlit rtf mandamus. 10- In this regard, the counter fited by Res;pondent No.4 assumes significance. Respondent No.4 categorically stated that upon receipt of the complaint submitted by Petitioner dated 18.12.2025, the samc $ras examined by t.he Vigitance Commission and thcreafter, it uras fonvarded to [he Secretary, School Education Department, ()overnment of 1-elangana, by Letter dated i3.01.2026 with a rcquest to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action in thc matter. The said fact is not in dispute. Petitioner himself, in the rejoinder. acknowlcdges
JJ existence of the said communication dated 13.O 1.2O26 which reads as under: TELANGANA VIGILANCE COMMISSION SECRETARIAT : : IIYDERABAI) Lettcr lto.5698 /Sot.vc.C 1/2O25-1. Dated: l3loIl2026 From M.G. Gopal, IAS (Retired), Vigilance Commissioner. To The Secretary to Government, School Education Departmenr, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad (we) Madam, Sub: Crrnplaint on aegistcring the cas,c for loss to StaLe Exchequer ncarly IOO crotes by escalatltlg the unit price ofthc Bunker Beds from Rs.l5OO0 to 33000/ in KGBVS m Telangana State with the Matfi:esscs & P lows - Reg. Rct 1 From Sn Peddi Sudarshao Reddy, EX.MLA, arsampel lO3, Warangal District and Ex- Chanrman' Ci!'rl Supplics Corporatioo,'lelangana, dt- la.l2 2025. 2. Frorn Sri TPS Harsha, Advocate, #3B, Abnanta Nilayam, P S-Nilayan, Masab Tank, H]'derabad, dt3l.12-2025. 3. From Sri Peddr Sudarshan Reddy, Dx.Mt,A, Narsaflpet 103, Waralgat I)istrict and Ex. Chairman, Civil Supplies Corporation, Telangana, dt.3O. t 2.2025 & 3 t. t 2.2025. 4. Orders of Show Causc Notice before admission issued by the Hon'bte l{i8h Court in w-P.No.40o73 of 2025 on 30-12.2025 filcd by Sri Peddi Sudershan Reddy, S/o P.Raji Reddy (do\.(,nloaded from the website of THC). Commission forwards herewith copies of the references 1st to 4th cited together with its enclosures to the School Education Department to conduct enquiry and take oecessary action in the matter. (21 Receipt of this letter together with enctosure may be acknorvledged. "This letter shoutd not be quoted or referred to in any correspondence or order". yours taithfu[y, '*Yi"'"sffi Siitfii,'i';T; Secy- to v.C 11 Therefore, the primary grievance ra.iscd by Petitioner ie .) Respondent No.4 failed to act upon the 34 representation dated la.12.2025, stands substantially addressed. Once the compiaint h as been forrvarded to the appropriate department for enquir5,, the process contemplated under the administrative frarneu,ork governing viglilancc matters stands initiated. The role of this Cor_rrt, in such r:ircumstances, is limited.
It is well-settted that juri ictior-r of this Court under Article 226 of tlte Constitution is discrer,ionary and is primarily in[ended Lo ensure that statutory authorities act within the bounds o[ their powers and discharge their duties in accordance with law. Thc Court ordinaril_v does nol issue directions lr.,here the grievancc raiseil b_y pelitior-r,:r has alreacly been addressed or u,herc the s[aLLltory mechanisrn has already been set in motion.
Petitioner has sought to contend that Respondent No.4 ought to have undertaken a more pro:rctive role in conducting or supervising the enquiry. However, the counter affidavit f-rled by Respoudent No.4 explains tht: institutional frameu,ork uncler lr,h ich tl-re Vigiiance Commiss ion functions and clarifies that complaints received fiom members of the public are examined ancl l.hereafter, refer.red to the administrative department or investigating agenci:s for enquiqz
i5 and report. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondent No.4 has failed to discharge its duties in the matter.
At this stage, it is also necessary to emphasize that writ juri iction of this Court cannot be invoked to supervise or micro-manage the manner in which an administrative enquiry is to be conducted once the competen t authority has already initiated the process. The Court is also conscious of the fact that Petitioner has raised several allegations regarding irregularities in the tender process, allegcd price escalation and alleged loss to the public exchequer. However, those issues are not directly the subject matter of challenge in the pre sent Writ Petition.
Thc attempt- made subsequently by Petitioner through interlocutory applicalions to widen the scope of the proceedings and seek orders restraining execution of the tender or supply of bunker beds canuot alter the nature of the original Writ Petition, It is settled principle of law that the reliel sought in a Writ Petition must be determined primarily on the basis of the pleadings and the prayer clause in the main petition. Interlocutory applications cannot be used as a device to substantially transform the nature of the proceedings or introduce entirely new causes of action.
The Court also takes note o[ the submission made by respondents that the issues relating to alleged irregularities
36 in the tender process and the execution of supplementary agreements had earlier been the sutr-iect rnatter of Writ Petition No. 38140 of 2025 filed belore this Court- Ac:ording to the respondents, the said w,rit petition was dismissed on 22.O1.2026. Against the saicl order. Vv'rir Appeal No. 411 of 2O26 was lrled and it was also dismissed urde or-der daLed 13.O4.2026. 17. In- irratters relating {-o public pro,:urement and contracLual arrangernents ente r ed into by tlx, State or its instrumentalities, the scopc of judicial rev-iew un,ler Article 226 of the Constitution is limited_ Courts or-dinaril.y refrain from interfering in contractual matters unless the dr:cision-making process is shown to bc vitiaLeci b5. arbitrarin ess, mala fides, irrationality or violation of statutor], provisions. The present Writ Petilion, however, does not call upon this Court to examine the Iegality of the tender process or th: contractual arrangements entered in to by l_he Statc as the linrited grievance is non-consideration of Petitinner's representation.
Be that as it may, since Respon(lent No.4, on receipt of complaint of Petitioner dated 18. \,2..2025, examined and forwarded the samc to Res6.ronclent No.S Secretary to Government, Schoot BducaLion Department, Ciovernment of Telangana, by Lettcr date d i 3.0 1 . ?-O26 .\iL:n a reql-le st to conduct enquiry and take approprierte act.ion in the matter,
whichfactwasacknowledgedbyPetitioner,RespondentNo.5 is directed to conduct detailed errquliry i(to the matter within a ieasonable period and take necessary aclion' Till then' t-he interim order dated 23 'Ol '2026 will prevail' lg. The Writ Petition is accordingly' 2Posed of' No 31 costs-
ConsequentlY, the any shall stand closed' miscellaneous APPlications, if //// MOHD. TSMAIL DEPUTY RzSTRAR ,/ SECTIOMFFICER To, 1 . The Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Finance' New Delhi'
The Commissioner' C"ni'uf Vigifunce^Commission' Satarkta Bhavan' Block-A ' c'P"o;;;;L,' rNn New Delhi - '110023
The Managing Director' N;tional Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development /NABARD)' Plot c-2+"E'E*n]"ii"nJ'u "xur.iu complex' Bandra (East)' irfrtnOui, Maharashtra 400051' , The Commisioner, State Vigilance Commission' 2nd Floor' D-Block' BRKR " ehauan, Hyderabad- 500 063
The Secretrv, stut"oii"langana' School Education Department' Secretariat .il:T::;X[::?f :"."rs:*1sr,?l']:i:1""^::'#ff1:1ff :?H::"** at 1 st Floor, samag ra s'lir.Ir,", il.iJ"' Telephone B havan' Hyderabad'
The Director s"noor ri''""i'on' oo'"'n*"nt of Telangana' Office at Saifabad' , I#"J::',:,J:'#:1 " orEdu.cation' Un o::',,*11J.:: fl?ibi.. Raiendra Prasad Rd, Rajpath o"";';;;;;i';ecretariat' New Delhi- 1'10001 e. rhe Department of school Education un! Ll"lu:J;us3[::fff'[i;"Ti?[: " I ili*J;;i Education' shastri Bhavan' Dr Raien' .""iiri'3""*tariat' New Delhi - 1 10001 ' \
l0.Telangana State Education Welfare and lnfrastructure Development Corporation TSEWIDC, Represented by its Managing Director, LB Stadium Rd, Fateh Maidan, Abids, Hyderabad, Telangana 500001. CT of R13 is amended as per C.O.dt.13.O2.2026 in lA No.4/2026. 11.One CC to SRI T.P.S.HARSHA, Advocate IOPUCI 12.One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC] 13.Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 14.One CC to MS.UMA DEVI, SC FOR NABARD, [OPUC] 'l5.One CC to SRI N.V.R.RAJYA LAKSHIVI, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC] 16.One CC to SRI A.YADAVA REDDY, SC FOR TSEWIDC, IOPUCI 17.One CC to SRI B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate, TOPUCI 18.Two CD Copies. BSK
HIGH COURT DATED: 0110512026 ,rfi* :.r' ,J' 1 Hl_ YA P 1 1 i'!AY 2026 2 T (- ('J I t,) 2. . r.1) tt.4, .--- il ORDER WP.No.40073 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.