M/S. Meher Sai Transport vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER OFFICE NOTE Standing Counsel for Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation (for short, ‘TSCSC’) for respondent Nos.2 to 4. The grievance of petitioner appears simple and the act of respondent authorities appears complicated and unknown to law, rather strange to law.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that office of Additional Collector and EOED, TGCSSCL, issued a tender notice, dated 25.02.2026 (Ex.P1, page No.14) for appointment of contractors for transportation of paddy and gunnies from various paddy purchase centers/storage points/buffer godowns/wagons to various paddy purchase centers/buffer godowns/rice mills and other godowns within and outside the district as entrusted by TGSCSCL for Kharif Market Season (KMS) 2025- 26, Rabi & KMS 2026-27 Kharif Season i.e., 01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027. It is further submitted that petitioner applied for Sector–2 i.e., Birkur & Bichkunda, a Technical Tender Form annexed as Ex.P2 at Page No.17 of writ papers was submitted by one Gowrishetty Venkatesh, Managing Director of M/s. Meher Sai Transport (petitioner herein). Ex.P3 at Page No.22 is a Financial Tender (Annexure-VIII) submitted by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was declared as L1 in respect of e-tender issued for Sector-2 i.e., Bichkunda & Birkur.
SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the contents of Ex.P4 at Page No.25 of writ papers, which is a photocopy of eGP Portal – Tenders (e procurement by Government of Telangana). Pointing to the contents of Ex.P4, it is submitted that Sector-2, Birkur & Bichkunda (Kamareddy District) was awarded to the petitioner. The following are the relevant details pointed out by the counsel for petitioner from Ex.P4. “… Tender Awarded Details
Awarded to Awarded on MEHER SAI TRANSPORT 13/8/2026 5:36 PM”
To substantiate his contentions further, learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of this Court and pointed at the reference in the e- tender notice to the Letter No.225/DMO/KMR/PTC/ KMS/25-26/KMS/26-27, dated 25.02.2026 (Page No.14), and also pointed that the same letter number details are reflected in the photocopy of eGP Portal – Tenders, where tender was awarded (Page No.25). Learned counsel further submitted that these details indicated that the e-tender in respect of Sector-2 i.e., Bichkunda & Birkur was awarded to M/s.Meher Sai Transport as per the details in Ex.P4 at Page No.25 (eGP Portal – Tenders) on 13.08.2026. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the other e-tender notice issued by the office of Additional Collector on 12.08.2026 (Page No.26, Ex.P5) in respect of the same Sector (i.e., SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE Sector-2 Bichkunda & Birkur) and further pointed out that the reference number of letter is same as that of the first e-tender notice, dated 25.02.2026 i.e., letter bearing Lr.No.225/DMO/KMR/PTC/KMS 25-26/KMS 26-27. It is further submitted that this tender notice also emanated from the office of Additional Collector & EOED, TGSCSCL, Kamareddy, in respect of the same Sector, without the earlier e-tender notice being cancelled, which was awarded in favour of petitioner, as the petitioner was L1. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that once the e-tender in respect of Sector-2 (Bichkunda & Birkur) was awarded in favour of petitioner on 13.08.2026, issuance of e-tender dated 12.08.2026 for the same Sector i.e., Sector-2 (Bichkunda & Birkur) by the same office is arbitrary, illegal and needs to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents placed on record two sets of instructions received from the office of Additional Collector dated 07.05.2026 and 17.09.2026. It is submitted that objections were raised by one Mr.Sunkara Hanush (L2) in respect of M/s. Meher Sai Transport, who was L1 in Sector-2 for e- tender, dated 25.02.2026. The following are the contents of instructions received on 07.05.2026: ““TELANGANA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES COPRORATION LIMITED DISTRICT OFFICE : KAMAREDDY SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE Sri V. Victor, Addl. Collector & EOED
Lr.No.Mktg/Paddy Proc/KMS 2025-26/KMS 2026-27 Date:07.05.2026
To The VC & Managing Director TGSCSCL, Hyderabad.
Sir, Sub:- TGSCSCL – DMO- Kamareddy – Tenders held for the appointment of paddy & gunny transport contractors for Rabi 2025-26 and Khariff 2026-27 – Complaint filed by Sri Hanush Sunkara w.r.t. the conduct of tenders – Detailed report submitted – Reg. Ref:-1.Lr.No.PROC/P1/350/PTC KMS 2025-26-27 Dt.13.04.2026 of the VC & Managing Director, TGSCSCL, Hyderabad. 2.A/o Sri Hanush Sunkara det.11.03.2026. 3.A/o Meher sai transport Dt.11.03.2026. 4.This office Lr.No.Mktg/1/Paddy Proc/KMS 2025- 26/KMS 2026-27 Dt.13.03.2026
@ @ @
It is to submit that vide reference 1st cited, the VC & Managing Director, TGSCSCL Hyderabad has communicated that Sri Hanush Sunkara who is participated in paddy & gunny transport tenders for sector – 2 (Birkur & Bichkunda Mandals) has raised objections against M/s. Meher said transport who stood as L1 in paddy & gunny transport tenders for sector – 2 (Birkur & Bichkunda Mandals). The objections are as follows.
Upload of Black & White scanned copy instead of colour scanned copy.
Missing signature on the sixth page.
Incomplete submission of tender document (50 pages uploaded out of 59).
Mismatch of Signatures in partnership deed and RC books.
Incomplete GST document submitted by M/s. Meher Sai Transport.
In this regard it is to submit that after opening the technical bid, some mistakes were also found in tender submitted by the Hanush Sunkara transport contractors which are as follows:
In financial tender form ASOR rates not written in words.
Signature and stamp not done on EMD Receipt, GST Certificate, Aadhar & PAN Card.
Signature not done on financial bid.
Signature and stamp not done on all the vehicle SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE documents i.e., RCs, Permit, Fitness, Insurance and tax documents.
As both the tenderers committed mistakes while submitting the tender, the Tender Committee decided to call for a re-tender for Sector-2 (Birkur and Bichkunda Mandals). However, both the tenderers, namely M/s. Hanush Sunkara Transport Contractors and M/s. Meher Sai Transport, have submitted individual representations vide reference 2nd and 3rd cited requesting that both tenders be opened and the contract be awarded to whichever party qualified as L1. Accordingly, the tender committee chaired by the Additional Collector & EOED has considered the representations and qualified both the tenderers in technical round in view of the commencement of Rabi 2025-26 season and to ensure smooth functioning of paddy procurement operations.
After opening the financial bid M/s. Meher Sai Transport stood as L1 for Sector-2 (Birkur and Bichkunda Mandals). The details are as follows.
Sl.No Name of the Tenderer ASOR quoted Remarks 1 M/s. Meher Sai Transport 78% L1 2 M/s. Hanush Sunkara Transport Contractors 98.48% L2
As M/s. Meher Sai Transport stood as L1, the tender committee has decided to send proposals to Head Office for approval rates quoted by M/s. Meher Sai Transport. Accordingly, proposals have been sent to Head Office vide reference 4th cited.
It is further submitted that the decision taken by the Tender Committee to open both the tenders was solely based on the requests made by the two bidders and in view of the fast approaching of Rabi 2026-27 season, and no external influence was exercised by anyone.
It is also submitted that the Tender Committee has forwarded proposals for approval of the rates quoted by M/s. Meher Sai Transport, who stood as L1. The rates are not a loss to the public exchequer; on contrary, they result in savings to public funds, as the lower rates have been sent for approval.
This is submitted for information and necessary action.
SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE
Yours faithfully
Addl. Collector & EOED TGSCSCL:: Kamareddy
Encl: Ref 2 & 3”
It is observed from the contents of document dated 07.05.2026 that objections were raised by Sri Hanush Sunkara in respect of Sector-2 against the petitioner, who stood as L1. It is further observed from the contents of the document, dated 07.05.2026, that after the opening of the Technical Bid, mistakes were found in the tender submitted by Hanush Sunkara Transport Contractors. It is also observed from the contents of the document that as the rates quoted by petitioner who stood as L1 were not a loss to the public exchequer, on the contrary, they were resulting in saving public funds, the Tender Committee forwarded proposals for approval of rates by petitioner.
It is apparent that the petitioner stood as L1 with lower rates and the Tender Committee forwarded proposals for approval of the rates quoted by the petitioner.
The instructions, dated 17.09.2026, forwarded by the office of Additional Collector, EOED, placed on record by the Standing Counsel are as follows: TELANGANA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD DISTRICT OFFICE KAMAREDDY -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Date: 17.09.2026 From V. Victor Additional Collector & EOED, SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE TGSCSCL, Kamareddy
Sir,
Instructions submitted in WP.No._______/2026 filed by M/s. Meher Sai Transport represented by Gowrishetty Venkatesh.
A e-Tender notice issued by Additional Collector & EOED, TGSCSCL Kamareddy, vide Lr. No.225/DMO/KMR/ PTC/KMS25-26/KMS 26-27, Dated 25.02.2026 calling tenders for (10) sectors in Kamareddy District for Transportation of paddy and gunnies from various paddy purchase centers/storage points/buffer godowns/rice mills and other godowns for KMS 2025-26 (Rabi Season) & KMS 2026-27 (Kharif season) from 01-04-2026 till 31-03-2027. The Petitioner and M/s. Sunkara Hanush have filed their Tender bid for Sector-2 (Birkur and Bichkunda).
As per the Tender schedule, First the Technical Bids were opened Later, Financial Bids were opened. The Technical Bids were opened before the District Tender Committee (DTC) consisting of the Additional Collector & EOED, District Manager-CSC, DCSO, AD (Marketing), RTA and qualified both tenderers. Later, the Financial Bids were opened and M/s. Meher Sai Transport stood as L.1 for Sector 2 (Birkur and Bichkunda Mandals).
Subsequently, the Tender Committee has forwarded proposals for approval of the rates quoted by M/s. Meher Sai Transport, who stood as L.
The rates are not a loss to the public exchequer, on the contrary, they result in savings to public funds, as the lower rates have been sent for approval.
Further, the VC & Managing Director, TGSCSCL Hyderabad has communicated that Sri Hanush Sunkara who is participated in paddy & guny transport tenders for sector - 2 (Birkur & Bichkunda Mandals) has raised objections against M/s. Meher sai transport who stood as L1 in paddy & guny transport tenders for sector 2 (Birkur & Bichkunda Mandals) and requested to inquire into the allegations leveled by the Hanush Sunkara.
In this regard, the Additional Collector & EOED enquired in this matter and found that both the tenderers committed mistakes while submitting the tender, the Tender committee decided to call re-tender for Sector-2 (Birkur & Bichkunda Mandals) However, both the tenderers, the Petitioner and M/s. Hanush Sunkara Transport Contractors, have submitted individual representations requesting both tenders be opened and the contract be awarded to whichever party qualifies as L1 and the same communicated to the VC & Managing Director, TGSCSCL Hyderabad.
In view of the above, the VC & Managing Director, TGSCSCL Hyderabad, vide Lr.No.Proc/P1/350/PTC KMS 2025-26-27, Dated 03.08.2026, upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, requested to take necessary action to invite fresh e- tenders for Sector-2 (Birkur & Bichkunda Mandals) for the remaining contract period.
SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE
Accordingly, A e-Tender notice issued by Additional Collector & EOED, TGSCSCL, Kamareddy, vide Lr. No.225/DMO/KMR/PTC/KMS25-26/KMS 26-27, Dated 12.08.2026 calling tenders for sector-2 (Birkur & Bichkunda Mandals) in Kamareddy District for Transportation of paddy and gunnies from various paddy purchase centers/storage points/buffer godowns/rice mills and other godowns for KMS 2025-26 (Rabi Season) & KMS 2026-27 (Kharif season) for remaining contract period i.e., upto 31-03-2027. (4) tenders were filed ie, 1 K. Maruthi Sanjay, 2 Sunkara Hanush, 3 Gourishetty Venkatesh and 4 Thirumala Transport.
On scrutiny it is found that K. Maruthi Sanjay technically dis-qualified due to Vehicles insurance copies uploaded in Black & White and Thirumala Transport dis-qualified due to vehicles original tax receipts not uploaded.
Further Sunkara Hanush has raised his objection on the petitioner Le, Gowrishetty Venkatesh regarding alteration of insurance copy as Among the own vehicles declared by the Gowrishetty Venkatesh, for vehicle number TG 12 U 4502, the insured name shown on the insurance copy submitted appears to have been edited/altered.
The same was verified by this office duly scanning the QR code printed on the uploaded insurance copy and found that the insurance is registered in the name of Nangunuri Srikanth who is the previous owner of the vehicle which is altered as Gowrishetty Venkatesh at the time of uploading.
In view of the above, the tender committee has decided to disqualify Sri Gowrishetty Venkatesh due to alteration of name on insurance document.
After technical verification, financial tender was opened for the technically qualified tenderer on 07.09.2026. Hence, Sunkara Hanush stood as L-1 tenderer, the District Tender Committee has opined that the final ASOR offered by the L-1 tenderer are reasonable and the same was sent to the VC & Managing Director, TGSCSCL. Hyderabad for approval of final proposed rate.
It is submitted that the petitioner has no vested or enforceable right merely by participating in the tender process, and the action of the respondents is well within the scope of administrative discretion and in accordance with the tender conditions. The tender process is neither arbitrary nor mala fide, but is based on objective assessment of discrepancies and in furtherance of public interest. The action is also justified under the doctrine of maintaining a level playing field among bidders.
Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel is requested to defend the action of the respondents by justifying the fresh e-tender awarded to L-1 tenderer as legal, valid, and in public interest.
Hence it is requested to appraise the above facts to the Hon'ble High court of Telangana, Hyderabad.
SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE Yours faithfully,
Additional Collector & EOED TGSCSCL KAMAREDDY ADDL. COLLECTOR KAMAREDDY.”
It defies the logic of this Court as to how the office of Additional Collector could have issued another e-tender notice dated 12.08.2026 for the very same cluster i.e., Sector-2, i.e., Bichkunda & Birkur, for the same purpose, for the same seasons and for the same period i.e., from 01.04.2026 to 31.03.2027, without cancelling the e-tender notice issued on 25.02.2026, in which petitioner was declared as L1 by the competent authority and the Tender Committee had forwarded the proposals for approval of the rates of the petitioner, as lower rates were quoted by petitioner and there being no loss to the exchequer.
It is submitted by the learned counsels for the respondent authorities that the issuance of e-tender notice, dated 12.08.2026, cannot be found fault with. It is also submitted that the petitioner herein and Mr. Sunkara Hanush participated in the tender process. It is also pointed out that the petitioner herein altered the name on insurance document and hence, was disqualified though being L1 in respect of e-tender issued on 25.02.2026 for Sector-2. It is submitted that the respondents would abide by the directions if any issued by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.
This Court, on 18.09.2026, dictated the order in open Court. After noticing that petitioner participated in 2nd tender and stood disqualified, which was not brought to the notice of this Court, the matter is posted today under the caption ‘ON BEING MENTIONED’ and heard.
It was noticed that petitioner participated in individual capacity in the 2nd tender (12.08.2026) and was disqualified in the 2nd tender. This writ petition is filed by M/s.Meher Sai Transport (Registered Firm) represented by its Managing Partner Gowri Shetty Venkatesh.
At Paragraph No.5 of writ affidavit, petitioner stated that he reliably came to know that in the 2nd tender, respondent No.4 is the highest bidder and he was declared as L1 and was awarded the contract.
It is pleaded before this Court, when the matter is posted under the caption ‘on being mentioned’ that the writ petition is filed in the capacity of the Managing Director of the Firm and the Firm participated in the First tender and that in the 2nd tender issued on 12.08.2026, the Managing Partner participated in his individual capacity and was disqualified and hence the distinctness.
It is stated in paragraph No.5 of the writ affidavit that “he reliably came to know that in the 2nd tender, respondent No.4 was declared as SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE successful bidder (as L1).”
Though, it is contended that in the writ petition filed, the challenge is by the Firm and the petitioner Firm being represented by Managing Partner, there is a distinctness from the person who has participated in the 2nd tender in his individual capacity.
It is not in dispute that the Managing Partner of the Firm is the very same person who has participated in the 2nd tender in his individual capacity.
This fact should have been stated very clearly in the writ affidavit, for reasons best known, it was not stated so, in such clear terms, it is only stated that the Firm has come to know reliably.
Having participated in the tender in his individual capacity, though being a different juristic person, still the petitioner Firm being managed by the very same person cannot plead ignorance. The minimum he could have done was pleaded the same in the writ affidavit in a lucid manner.
These facts need to be answered by the respondent authorities by way of a counter affidavit, these aspects need to be gone into, at the time of hearing of the writ petition after filing of a counter affidavit.
It is submitted to this Court by respondent counsel that petitioner in his individual capacity has uploaded a copy of the insurance which was registered in the name of Nangunuri Srikanth, SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE owner of vehicle bearing No.TS 12U 4502 and the insurance copy was altered by Gowrishetty Venkatesh at the time of uploading.
These facts of participation in the 2nd tender by Gowrishetty Venkatesh in his personal capacity for the same Sector-2 Bichkunda & Birkur and the very same person is representing as Managing Partner of the Firm have to be heard.
Learned counsel for respondents seeks time to file counter affidavit with all the documents filed by the Firm, represented by its Managing Director in the 1st tender (Gowri Shetty Venkatesh) and also in his individual capacity in the 2nd tender, having participated and disqualified in the 2nd tender.
It is trite law that a person who stood disqualified in the 2nd tender cannot now turn around by challenging the first tender on the ground that E-tender issued in February, 2026, has not been cancelled, though in the individual capacity, having participated. Matter requires a hearing.
Issue notice to respondent No.
Learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent No.4 through SPAD and file proof of service by next date of hearing.
Post the matter on 01.10.2026. __________ JAK,J plp
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.