Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T. Sarat Chandra Academy Llp.., vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 August, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010145422025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AIVIARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) ot4Eiw
7^,
iO TJ
SATURDAY.THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST 73
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I
0
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 7417 OF 2025
Between:
T. Sarat Chandra Academy LLP., rep by its Managing Director, C/o.Mahatma
Gandhi Road, P & T Colony, Acharya Ranga Nagar, Vijayawada-52001 0
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal
Welfare Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner/Director of Tribal Welfare, Vijayawada, Krishna
District, Andhra Pradesh
3. The Project OfficerjPO), The Integrated Tribal Development Agency
(ITDA) Paderu, Alluri Seetharamaraju District.
4. The Managing Director, KP 21 St centuary IAS academy, Opp
Panchayat School, Torredu (V). Seethanagaram Rd,
Rajamahendravaram, Andhra Pradesh 533293.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ
of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in cancelling the
tender dated 11.03.2025 issued by the respondents unilaterally despite the
petitioner stood as LI bidder and subsequent issuance of second tender
dated 15.03.2025 insisting 10 years prior experience thereby excluding the
petitioner from the tender process is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the
principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice amounts to a
colourable exercise of powers, and also against the doctrine of level playing
field in which denial of equal opportunity and reflects a non-transparent and
discriminatory exercise of power as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminative
and violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner herein guaranteed
under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set
aside the same and also direct the Respondents herein to consider the case
of the petitioner as LI bidder as he is stood LI with very low competitive price
thereby saving the public exchequers money.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 19.03.2025
made by the petitioner to participate in the ongoing tender without insisting
the 10 years' experience to ensure the transperancy in the tender process
pending disposal of the above writ petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2Q2fi
Between:
The Project Officer(PO), The Integrated Tribal Development Agency
(ITDA) Paderu, Alluri Seetharamaraju District.
...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
AND
1. T. Sarat Chandra Academy LLP., rep by its Managing Director,
C/o.Mahatma Gandhi Road, P & T Colony, Acharya Ranga Nagar,
Vijayawada-520010
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal
Welfare Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Guntur District.
3. The Commissioner/Director of Tribal Welfare, Vijayawada, Krishna
District, Andhra Pradesh
St
4. The Managing Director, KP 21 centuary IAS academy, Opp
Panchayat School, Torredu (V), Seethanagaram Rd,
Rajamahendravaram, Andhra Pradesh 533293.
(Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not necessary parties in this petition)
...RESPONDENTS/ 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 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.7417 of 2025
and dismiss the Writ Petition.
lA NO: 4 OF 2025
Between:
The Managing Director, KP 21®* centuary IAS academy, Opp Panchayat
School, Torredu (V), Seethanagaram Rd, Rajamahendravaram, Andhra
Pradesh 533293.
...PETITIONER/4**' RESPONDENT
AND
1. T. Sarat Chandra Academy LLP., rep by its Managing Director,
C/o.Mahatma Gandhi Road, P & T Colony, Acharya Ranga Nagar,
Vijayawada-520010.
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal
Welfare Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Guntur District.
3. The Commissioner/Director of Tribal Welfare, Vijayawada, Krishna
District, Andhra Pradesh
4. The Project Officer(PO), The Integrated Tribal Development Agency
(ITDA), Paderu, Alluri Seetharamaraju District.
...RESPONDENTS/ 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; 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.7417 of 2025
and dismiss the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI REGULAGADDA VENKATESH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI THANDAVA YOGESH
The Court made the following order:
APHC010145422025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
1^0 AT AMARAVATl [3327]
0 (Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 7417/2025
Between:
REP BY ITS
1 T SARAT CHANDRA ACADEMY LLP..
MANAGING DIRECTOR, C'OMAHATMA GANDHIROAD P
ANDT COLONY, ACHARYA RANGA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-
520010
...PETITIONER
AND
1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ^^P BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATl, GUNTUR DISTRICT. cadp
2 THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
3.THE PROJECT OFFICER PO, THE INTEGRATED TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT (ITDA), PADERU, ALLURI
AGENCY
SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. iaq
4.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KP 21ST CENTUARY AS
ACADEMY,OPP PANCHAYAT SCHOOL, TORREDU (V)
SEETHANAGARAM RD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH 533293.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a WritMandamus
Order or
direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of the tender
declaring the action of the Respondents in cancelling despite the
dated 11 03.2025 issued by the respondents unilaterally of second
petitioner stood as L1 bidder and subsequent issuance
tender dated 15.03.2025 insisting 10 years prior experience thereby
excluding the petitioner from the tender process is illegal, arbitrary
and natura
and violative of the principles of fairness, transparency
also against
iustice amounts to a colourable exercise of powers,and
of equal opportunity
the doctrine of level playing field in which denial
2
as^aTb^ra^ exercise of power
feriT 9td^21°onh hereln"gua" under
of the
to
consider the case of the petitioner as LI bidder as he is stood LI with
very^ low competitive price thereby saving the puMct°che;"e':^
lA NO: 1 OF
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
Sr-- --0
potion" tonarpTi^onfoln^ .e^ tin^/the to
years experience to ensure the transperancy in the tender process
the
pending disposal of the above writ petition
lA NO: 2 OF 2n9fi
Petition under Section 151 CPC pravino that in tho
the rf i" 'he affidavit filed in support of ml petition
Wm Pe«ioLnfpr::^^'' "
lA NO: 3 OF 2025
dismiss the
Petition under Section 151 CPC
the Htoh
taL ne^ court
^ ^ f'"h i"® pleased to direct=Wort fr''hi petition'to
the respond^ents
R^fnSf ^°'' P^V^ent of an amount of Rs 83 21 457/
Uifty ^yt
lA NO: 4 OF
Petition under Section 151 CPC
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed' in sSpport®ofTht petition®
dated'®2l oa^JnpT' 'he I eriro rte";
«io"fd paT®'' "
Counsel for the Petitioner:
and dismiss the
1. regulagadda venkatesh
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THANDAVA YOGESH
2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
I'!
WRIT PETITION No.7417 OF 2025
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition IS i filed seeking the following relief:
:
"...declaring the action of respondents cancelling the in tender dated 11.03.2025 issued by respondents unilaterally despite the petitioner stood as LI bidder and subsequent issuance of second tender dated 15.03.2025 insisting 10 years prior experience thereby excluding the petitioner from tender process as illegal, arbitraiy and violative of the principles of natural justice, transparency and natural justice. amounts to a colourable exercise of powers and also against the doctrine of level playing field in which denial of equal opportunity and reflects a non-transparent and discriminatoiy exercise of power as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminative and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner herein guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and also direct the respondents herein to consider the case of petitioner as LI bidder as he stood LI with very low competitive price thereby saving the public exchequers money and to pass such other ...."2
2. It IS the case of the petitioner that the petitioner institute was established in 2019 for imparting coaching for Civil Services examinations. It is committed to provide top quality education with a modem spacious campus, library and advanced learning resources. It supported over 100 ST students in the last five years by offering 50% discount and free coaching. It provides scholarships, mock tests and free study materia] through its app and digital platforms, and is committed to social empowerment, providing coaehing to underprivileged students, helping them to succeed without financial burden.
Respondent No.3 issued a Tender Notice dated 11.03.2025 inviting experienced organizations to establish and manage UPSC coaching centres across 11 tribal constituencies, which IS i aimed at uplifting tribal students and providing free residential coaching facilities. The petitioner participated in the tender process and became LI bidder quoting Rs.60.00 lakhs. The unofficial respondent quoted Rs.79.00 lakhs.
It is the case of the petitioner that m i pursuance of the opening of tenders, without awarding the contract to the 3 petitioner, surprisingly, the tender was unilaterally cancelled without there being any notice or intimation to the petitioner and others. There is absolutely no reason as to why the tender was cancelled without there being any justifiable reason, which is illegal and the same is against the principles of natural justice. Surprisingly, on 15.03.2025, respondent No.3 issued a fresh short tender notice inviting tenders for conducting coaching for Civil Services Examinations at Y.T.C.Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam to graduate tribal unemployed youth, and to the surprise of the petitioner, a condition has been stipulated in the fresh tender that there should be 10 years' experience to Whereas in the earlier participate in the tender process, tender, the condition that is stipulated to participate in the tender is only 5 years' experience, It is not known as to why the condition of 5 years' experience imposed in the earlier tender, has been replaced with the new condition of 10 years' experience, The petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.03.2025 with regard to unilateral cancellation of earlier tender. There is absolutely no answer 4 forthcoming from the respondents. The respondents have not issued any news paper advertisement but instead, circulated the Tender Notice privately, just to see to it that there should not be any fair competition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have deliberately altered the tender conditions to restrict the participation of the petitioner by putting 10 years' experience as a pre-condition, in the fresh tender issued for the self-same purpose, as they are well aware of the details of the petitioner while evaluating the earlier tender.
Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that tenders were called for, from interested and experienced coaching centres on or before 11.03.2025 by 5.00 PM vide Rc.No.Al/234/2025, dated 6.3.2025 for Civil Services Coaching programme to 100 S.T. students for a period of 11 months at Y.T.C., Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam, and a committee was constituted vide Rc.No.Bl/2025, dated 11.03.2025 to open the tender box and finalize the same.
On 11.3.2025 at 4.00 PM, members of the 5 % of committee opened the tender box in the presence tenderers and submitted the report, according to which, during technical verification, it was found that the petitioner did not submit the proof for STs coaching and ST achievers in UPSC/APPSC and hence its tender was rejected. It stated that the Committee has not mentioned anywhere that the petitioner is LI bidder by quoting Rs.60.00 lakhs. It is stated that so far, respondent No.3 completed two batches of Civil Services coaching programmes for unemployed ST graduates, and no tenders were called for Civil Services coaching programmes during 1st and 2nd batch, and the programme was organized with It is further stated Corporate Social Responsibility funds, that since there was only one financial bid referred by the Committee, the matter was referred to the Collector 86 District Magistrate, Alluri Sitharama Raju District and Chairman, ITDA, who ordered for retendering and also for relaxing certain technical specifications to improve more competitive participation keeping in mind the subject students are tribals and need expertise in the area. In view 6 of the same, tenders called on 11.3.2025 were cancelled and re-tenders were called on 21.3.2025 with a view to improve more competitive participation and expertise coaching to ST unemployed graduates, It is stated that the conditions were altered basing on the recommendation made by the Collector and District Magistrate to improve more competitive participation and expertise coaching to ST unemployed graduates. It is further stated that a short ' tender notice was given in Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi daily news papers vide Rc.No.Al/234/2025, dated 13.03.2025.
Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
4. Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit in similar lines and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G.Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the material on record.
6. According to the petitioner, it participated in the process of tender dated 11.03.2025 issued by Respondent 7 to establish and No .3 inviting experienced organizations across 11 tribal manage UPSC coaching centres constituencies which is aimed at uplifting tribal students and providing free residential coaching facilities, and became LI bidder quoting Rs.60.00 lakhs, but surprisingly and unilaterally, the respondents cancelled the same without any justification or without there being any notice the further or intimation to the petitioner and others. It is case of the petitioner that on 15.03.2025, respondent No.3 issued a fresh short tender notice inviting tenders for conducting coaching for Civil Services Examinations at Y.T.C. Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam to graduate tribal condition that the unemployed youth, by stipulating a new participant should have 10 years' experience to participate in the tender process. which, according to the petitioner, is without assigning any reasons and is aimed at only to eliminate the petitioner and accommodate unofficial respondent. According to respondent No.3, the petitioner was not declared as LI and that tender of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it did not submit the proof 8 5 for STs coaching and ST achievers in UPSC/APPSC, and that as per the instructions of the Collector & District Magistrate, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, who is the Chairman, ITDA, the condition of minimum 10 years' experience was imposed in the subsequent tender notice only to improve more eompetitive participation keeping in mind the subject students are tribals and need expertise in the area.
7. A perusal of the averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 goes to show that absolutely,, no reason has been assigned as to why tender process which has been called on 11.3.2025 has been unilaterally cancelled. The only reason that has been assigned is to the extent that the Collector & District Magistrate, Alluri Sitharama Raju District ordered for retendering and so also to relax some technical specifications to improve competitive participation.
Admittedly, the reason that has been assigned cannot be taken into account basing on the recommendation of the Collector & District Magistrate. Time and again, the ■> Tr' 9 consistently and this Court have been Honble Apex Court has to be conducted in a very holding that tender process embedded in public tender transparent and fair manner would help to prevent corruption proeess, and the same It is relevant to and misuse of the public resources.
be termed as mention here that cancelling the tender can Judicial review and without any justifiable cause arbitrary prevent arbitrariness of public authorities is permissible to abuse their that they do not exceed or and to ensure and requires overseeing powers in contractual transactions the administrative power of public authorities to award or cancel contracts or any of its stipulations. There cannot be an action of the State or that every any dispute be informed by reason, instrumentality of the State must informed by reason, is is arbitrary. To ascertain and an act, unin not, the Court must carefully whether an act is arbitrary or If the of the case, attend to the facts and circumstances of the authority, it act is a mere exhibition of the whim ia of arbitrariness. In the would sufficiently bear the insignia for that has been given case on hand, the reason 10 cancellation of the earlier tender dated 11.3.2025 and imposing a new conditino of 10 years' experience in the fresh tender notification, appears to be non-specific and not well defined. Because of the same, there is any amount of ambiguity for what reasons the tender that was called on 11.3.2025 was caneelled.
8. Apart from the same, within a span of two days, a fresh short tender was called for, with an advertisement made in Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi news papers on 13.3.2025 wherein conditions stipulated have been changed for the reasons best known. In the counter affidavit filed by 3^^ respondent, the only reason that has been stated is that because of recommendation made by the Collector and District Magistrate in order to improve quality of coaching to the tribal students and to maintain competitiveness. In order to maintain competition, it is essential that number of members ought to have been participated in tender process, but the condition that has been stipulated in the fresh short tender goes to show that in order to pick and choose a particular person, the 11 condition appears to have been introduced without any rationale. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the In Subodh procedure adopted appears to be not healthy. Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer & othersf the Hon hie Apex Court held as under: (paragraphs 72, 125 and 127) "72. The principal contention of the appellant is that the notice of cancellation dated 07.02.2023 that was issued by the respondent is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and influenced by mala fide and extraneous considerations.
125. Public tenders are designed to provide a level playing field for all potential bidders, fostering an environment where competition thrives, and the best value is obtained for public funds. The integrity of this process ensures that public projects and services are delivered efficiently and effectively, benefiting society at and fairness large. The principles of transparency embedded in public tender processes also help In to prevent corruption and misuse of public resources. this regard we may refer to the observations made by Farheem Meat this Court in Nagar Nigam v. Al.
Exporters Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2006) 13 SCC 382, which reads as under:--
"16. The law is well settled that contracts by the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies must be normally granted through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the public auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well-known dailies having wide circulation in the locality with all relevant details such as date, time and place of auction, subject-matter of auction, technical specifications, estimated cost, earnest 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 12 money deposit, etc. The award of government contracts through public auction/public tender is to ensure transparencu in the public procurement to maximise economy and efficiencu in government procurement to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and eguitable treatment of all tenderers. and to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authorities concerned. This is required by Article 14 of the Constitution. "
(Emphasis supplied)
127. The sanctity of contracts is a fundamental principle that underpins the stability and predictability of legal and commercial relationships. When public authorities enter into contracts, they create legitimate expectations that the State will honour its obligations. Arbitrary or unreasonable terminations undermine these expectations and erode the trust of private players from the public procurement processes and tenders. Once a contract is entered, there IS a legitimate expectation, that the obligations arising from the contract will be honoured and that the rights arising from it will not be arbitrarily divested except for a breach or non-compliance of the terms agreed thereunder. In this regard we may make a reference to the decision of this Court in Sivanandan C.T v. High Court of Kerala reported in (2024) 3 SCC 799 wherein it was held that a promise made by a public authority will give rise to a legitimate expectation that it will adhere to its assurances. The relevant portion reads as under:--
"18. The basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in Government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. The doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure XXX XXX XXX 13
45. The underlying basis for the application, of the doctrine of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved to include the principles of good administration. Since citizens repose their trust in the State, the actions and policies of the State give rise to legitimate expectations that the State will adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in a consistent, transparent, and predictable manner. The principles of good \ administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being regarded as arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14."
(Emphasis supplied)"
9. In the case on hand, the procedure adopted by respondent No.3 in cancelling the earlier tender dated 11.3.2025 without assigning any reasons and thereafter within a period of two days, issuing a short tender notice advertisement in newspapers calling for fresh tenders by changing the conditions stipulated in the tender notification, said to have been done with an intention to improve competitiveness, is not in accordance with law. In view of the same, the second short tender notice vide Rc.No.234/2025/Al, dated 15.03.2025 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside, directing the respondents to issue fresh tender, having regard to the foregoing observations, with a view to maintain healthy competition.14
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// // SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner/Director of Tribal Welfare, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh
3. The Project Officer (PO), The Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), Paderu, Alluri Seetharamaraju District.
4. The Managing Director, KP 21st centuary IAS academy,Opp Panchayat School, Torredu (V), Seethanagaram Rd, Rajamahendravaram, Andhra Pradesh 533293.
5. One CC to Sri Regulagadda Venkatesh, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Sri Thandava Yogesh, Advocate [OPUC]
7. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
8. Two CD Copies.
ssb V t rj.
V. / <**«* HIGH COURT DATED:30/08/2025 ORDER WP No. 7417 OF 2025 ^ 10 SEP 2025 J C3i ml Co' rrentSectifoX^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS