Ch. Jalandhar vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had not provided any proof of being the successful bidder. Furthermore, the tenders were opened on September 1, 2020, and the works were scheduled for completion by January 30, 2020. The writ petition was filed on October 21, 2020, nearly nine months after the scheduled completion date, and no interim relief was granted. Given this timeline and the lack of interim orders, the Court concluded that nothing remained for adjudication. Consequently, the writ petition and any pending miscellaneous petitions were dismissed as infructuous. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding being the successful bidder or the alleged illegal allotment of works.

Facts

The petitioner, Ch. Jalandhar, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging the action of the respondents, including the State of Telangana and its officials, for allegedly not allotting fabrication works of trusses and purlins for Agricultural Funds to him, despite him being the successful bidder. The petitioner claimed that the works were instead allotted to seven other firms at lower rates. The tender notification was issued by Respondent No. 3 on August 28, 2020, for the supply and fixing of fixtures to Rythu Vedika work sheds. The petitioner sought a direction to allot the works to him and to make payments for works undertaken by other firms through his firm, by duly recording them in measurement books upon submission of GST bills. The writ petition was filed on October 21, 2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not allotting fabrication works to the petitioner, despite him being the successful bidder (L1) in the tender process, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, and contrary to the tender provisions? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the tender notice and the allotment process). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that he was the successful bidder (L1) for the tender and that the works were wrongly allotted to other firms at lesser rates. He sought a direction for allotment of works and payment for works undertaken through his firm, supported by GST bills. Revenue/State: Did not file any specific arguments as recorded in the judgment. The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed any proof of being the successful bidder. The tenders were opened on September 1, 2020, and the works were scheduled to be completed by January 30, 2020, while the writ petition was filed on October 21, 2020, with no interim relief granted.