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 AMARAVATI [3327]
(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:
1. T. SARAT CHANDRA ACADEMY LLP..,, REP BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, C/OMAHATMA GANDHIROAD, P
AND T COLONY, ACHARYA RANGA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-
520010
...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 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.
...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 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 L1 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
2
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
IA 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 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
IA NO: 2 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 pleased to vacate the interim order
dated 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.7417 of 2025 and dismiss the
Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 3 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 pleased to direct the respondents to
take necessary action for payment of an amount of Rs.83,21,457/-
(Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred
and Fifty Seven only), towards the work duly executed by me which
are admitted by the Respondents, pending disposal of the above
Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 4 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 pleased to vacate the interim order
dated: 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.7417 of 2025 and dismiss the
Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THANDAVA YOGESH
2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.7417 OF 2025
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :
"...declaring the action of respondents in cancelling the tender dated 11.03.2025 issued by respondents unilaterally despite the petitioner stood as L1 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, arbitrary 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 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 petitioner as L1 bidder as he stood L1 with very low competitive price thereby saving the public exchequers money and to pass such other ...."4
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 modern 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 material through its app and digital platforms, and is committed to social empowerment, providing coaching 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 aimed at uplifting tribal students and providing free residential coaching facilities. The petitioner participated in the tender process and became L1 bidder quoting Rs.60.00 lakhs. The unofficial respondent quoted Rs.79.00 lakhs.
It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the opening of tenders, without awarding the contract to the 5 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 participate in the tender process. Whereas in the earlier 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 6 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.A1/234/2025, 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.B1/2025, dated 11.03.2025 to open the tender box and finalize the same. On 11.3.2025 at 4.00 PM, members of the 7 committee opened the tender box in the presence of 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 L1 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 Corporate Social Responsibility funds. It is further stated that since there was only one financial bid referred by the Committee, the matter was referred to the Collector & 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 8 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.A1/234/2025, 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 9 No.3 inviting experienced organizations to establish and manage UPSC coaching centres across 11 tribal constituencies, which is aimed at uplifting tribal students and providing free residential coaching facilities, and became L1 bidder quoting Rs.60.00 lakhs, but surprisingly and unilaterally, the respondents cancelled the same without any justification or without there being any notice or intimation to the petitioner and others. It is the further 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 unemployed youth, by stipulating a new condition that the 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 L1 and that tender of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it did not submit the proof 10 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 competitive 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 11 Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have been consistently holding that tender process has to be conducted in a very transparent and fair manner embedded in public tender process, and the same would help to prevent corruption and misuse of the public resources. It is relevant to mention here that cancelling the tender can be termed as arbitrary and without any justifiable cause. Judicial review is permissible to prevent arbitrariness of public authorities and to ensure that they do not exceed or abuse their powers in contractual transactions and requires overseeing the administrative power of public authorities to award or cancel contracts or any of its stipulations. There cannot be any dispute that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason, and an act, uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. To ascertain whether an act is arbitrary or not, the Court must carefully attend to the facts and circumstances of the case. If the act is a mere exhibition of the whim of the authority, it would sufficiently bear the insignia of arbitrariness. In the case on hand, the reason that has been given for 12 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 cancelled.
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 3rd 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 13 condition appears to have been introduced without any rationale. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the procedure adopted appears to be not healthy. In Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer & others,1 the Hon'ble 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 large. The principles of transparency and fairness embedded in public tender processes also help to prevent corruption and misuse of public resources. In this regard we may refer to the observations made by this Court in Nagar Nigam v. Al. Farheem Meat 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 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 14 money deposit, etc. The award of government contracts through public auction/public tender is to ensure transparency in the public procurement, to maximise economy and efficiency in government procurement, to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and equitable 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 15
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/A1, 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.16
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J 30.08.2025 DRK 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7417 OF 2025 30.08.2025 DRK