Telangana High Court
M/S Srvs Industries vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited on 23 September, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 18383 OF 2025
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed in response to respondents' refusal to consider petitioner's request to conduct e-Reverse Auction (e-RA) process afresh following an alleged technical glitch. The petitioner also seeks to have e-RA process conducted on 24.06.2025 for construction of roads and drains at Kurnool-3 Pooling Station, under Tender Specification No. SR-I/C&M/WC-4078/2025/RFx-5002004275 (SR1/NT/W- CIVIL/DOM/B00/25/02433), declared void and, consequently, to direct the respondents to re-conduct the e-RA process.
2. Petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 specializes in civil construction projects, construction of OFC projects and manufacturing of mechanical components for the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Respondent No. 1, is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India and holds the position of the largest power transmission licensee in the country. On 10.03.2025, Respondent No. 1 issued an invitation-for-bid (IFB) vide Specification No. SR-I/C&M/WC-4078/2025/RFx- 5002004275 (SR1/NT/W-CIVIL/DOM/B00/25/02433) for construction of roads and drains at Kurnool-3 Pooling Station. 2 Bidding was to be conducted through domestic competitive bidding procedures, subject to qualifying requirements, utilizing a 'Single Stage Two Envelope Bidding' procedure. 2.1. Petitioner applied for tender by submitting the required documents. After successful completion of Single Stage Two Envelope Biding procedure, petitioner was declared as the Lowest Evaluated Bidder. According to clause 29 of the instructions-to-bidders (ITB) issued by respondents, an e-Reverse Auction (e-RA) would be conducted if variation of the lowest evaluated bidder's price was less than or equal to +5% of the Indicative Estimated Cost for e-RA. This e-RA would include all the bidders whose evaluated price fell within the range of 5% of the evaluated price of the X1 bidder and was also less than or equal to +5% of the Indicative Estimated Cost for e-RA. Pursuant to these guidelines, petitioner, along with two other competitive bidders named A. V. Mohan Reddy and the 3rd respondent - Sri Lakshmi Constructions, were deemed eligible for e-RA. Petitioner, as the Lowest Evaluated Bidder, was scheduled to participate in e-RA on 24.06.2025 at 11:00 AM., slated to last for 120 minutes, with an auto-extension of 20 minutes if a bidder placed a price lower than the prevailing L1 bidder by at least the specified decrement. This extension would 3 continue until there was no change in the prevailing L1 price within the final 20 minutes.
2.2. Petitioner participated in e-RA on 24.06.2025, which began at 11:00 AM. Both the petitioner and another competitive bidder were actively placing bids. However, at approximately 2:09 PM, petitioner encountered a technical issue on respondents' e-RA portal; server became unresponsive and the portal displayed an error message stating "No support for Java APPLET!!!". This technical glitch prevented petitioner from continuing its participation in the auction. Immediately after the technical issue, petitioner attempted to contact ERP SRM helpdesk support, but the calls went unanswered. They then informed officials from the office of Respondent No. 2 about the issue and on the same day, they personally visited their office and submitted representation dated 24.06.2025 and requested re-conduction of e-RA process. However, respondents have not taken any steps.
2.3. Petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in the final and crucial phase of e-RA due to circumstances beyond its control, thereby depriving it of the right to carry on its lawful business and trade, which is violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and it is discriminatory and fails the test of reasonableness under Article 4 14 of the Constitution. Having been declared L1 in the previous stage and having qualified for e-RA, petitioner had a legitimate expectation of a fair, transparent and technologically-stable bidding process, which has been frustrated. The petitioner has suffered grave and irreparable prejudice, as had the technical issue not occurred, petitioner, who was actively participating and already declared L1, could have submitted further bids and potentially won the auction.
2.4. Petitioner also states that awarding contract in favour of a single tenderer, in this case, undermines transparency and competitiveness mandated by public procurement law and defeats the very purpose of conducting reverse auction. This process, reduced to a mere formality, is a travesty of established norms and is not in the best interest of the State or the exchequer. Petitioner further contends that if respondents proceed with awarding tender based on e-RA process that was abruptly concluded on 24.06.2025, it would be unjust, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 20 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner alleges that respondents are likely to proceed with finalizing tendering process and may imminently issue Letter of Intent (LoI) and enter into an agreement with the purported successful bidder, which would render the present writ petition infructuous. 5
3. Since petitioner had already made representation on 24.06.2025 which was received by the 2nd respondent, this Court by order dated 30.06.2025 granted stay of all further proceedings to the extent of finalising tenders for one week and the said order was extended from time to time and is in force till pronouncement of judgment.
4. In the counter filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated, they are engaged in establishment of the National Power Grid and have an extensive network of power sub- stations across the country. In their process of expansion, they had floated a Notice Inviting Tender: WC:4078 for Construction of Roads and Drains at 765 kv Kurnool-III Pooling Station. Petitioner participated in e-tender for this work against Specification No. SR-1/C&M,WC-4078/2025 RFx No.5002004275 on "PRANIT Portal" on 10.03.2025. Envelope-1 of the bids was opened on 20.03.2025; following the techno/commercial evaluation, price bids were opened on 11.06.2025. E-RA was subsequently carried out between petitioner and M/s Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Davanagere, starting at 11:00 hours on 24.06.2025.
4.1. This respondents assert that petitioner cannot have a grievance against them because they did not follow 'Pre- 6 Requisite system setting' stipulated for e-RA. e-RA Bidder Manual, which was shared with bidders before the auction, clearly stated that it was a pre-requisite to use "Microsoft Edge in Internet Explorer mode" while participating. The screenshot provided by petitioner shows that it was using 'Microsoft Edge browser without the Internet Explorer mode', which is a clear violation of the stipulated settings. A detailed analysis of the system logs by the CC-ERP department is attached in the material papers to support this claim. The system log report also indicates that petitioner used services of two internet service providers or two computers to submit its bids. The Bid Trail Report shows that the other bidder submitted its last bid at 13:50:50 Hours, after which auction was auto-extended up to 14:20:00 Hours, providing petitioner about 30 minutes to submit a counter bid. This demonstrates that there was a fair opportunity for petitioner to continue its participation. 4.2. It is pointed out that the screenshot submitted by petitioner shows the system time as 14:30 hrs. on 24.06.2025, which is after completion of e-RA at 14:20 hrs. This, according to respondents, clearly indicates petitioner's motive to mislead this Court by attributing its own wrongful actions to respondents. Respondents claim that petitioner, fully aware of its own errors, is shifting the blame to e-RA system in an 7 attempt to restart the entire process. Petitioner is not a new participant in their tenders and e-RA processes and participated in several such tenders in the past and is currently executing various works for them. Therefore, they are thoroughly aware of the process and procedure of e-RA conducted by respondents. Furthermore, petitioner was also trained by the Corporate Centre Enterprising Resource Planning (CC-ERP) team of the respondent on 23.06.2025, a day before e-RA.
4.3. From the Login - Logout Details provided by CC- ERP, it can be seen that petitioner attempted to log in to e-tender portal on 24.06.2025 from 10:42:02 Hours to 14:18:34 Hours and successfully logged in four times at 10:46:11 Hours, 14:13:35 Hours, 14:17:42 Hours and 14:18:34 Hours. This contradicts petitioner's statement in its affidavit that it encountered a technical issue around 2:09 PM. Respondents argue that since petitioner successfully logged in four times, it could have completed the process of participating in e-RA; failure was result of deliberately not using the recommended browser and not continuing in ERP process after logging in successfully. It is also stated, System Availability Report from the CC-ERP clearly establishes that their portal was 100% functional and available on 24.06.2025. The ABAP System and 8 Portal Start Page Http Availability Report dated 24.06.2025 supports this claim.
4.4. Respondents also state that they only became aware of the alleged technical issue and the error message "No support for Java APPLET!!" when petitioner approached their office in Secunderabad, and their officials contacted ERP SRM Team in Gurgaon, which confirmed that there were no technical issues with e-RA portal. This was communicated to petitioner at that time and they were advised to check its own internet connection and computer settings. Respondents deny the petitioner's claim that CC-ERP SRM Help Desk did not answer its calls. They clarify that help desk is located in their Corporate Office at Gurgaon and attends calls from all the users across the country. It is asserted, the busy tone petitioner may have encountered was misrepresentation of the situation, falsely portrayed as a deliberate act by respondents. It is argued, by not following the 'Pre-Requisite system settings' and using two different connections or computers, petitioner interfered with e- RA process, causing its own delay and preventing it from submitting a counter-bid. Since their e-RA was "fool-proof and system driven," they have no right to cancel or conduct it again. They deny that their refusal to re-conduct he e-RA constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
94.5. Respondents clarify that the lowest bidder before e-RA is called X-1 not L1 and the successful bidder after e-RA is the L1 bidder. They maintain that their e-RA was a fair, transparent, and technologically stable bidding process, and the petitioner cannot claim it was "frustrated" simply because it did not get the award. Respondents emphasize that the Government of India introduced e-tendering to bring total transparency to the tendering process. All their tenders are displayed on "PRANIT Portal" to provide equal opportunity to all the bidders. They clarify that Notification of Award was already issued to the 3rd respondent - M/s. Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Karnataka, on 27.06.2025. This means the tendering process had concluded and Writ Petition, which was filed on 28.06.2025, was already infructuous on the date of its filing. The awarded contract is a time-bound work and any interference would jeopardize their interests and frustrate the contract between them and the successful bidder. They explain that the award contains terms and conditions that impose liabilities on the parties, and any delay would make the contractor liable for liquidated damages.
5. Respondent No. 3 which was awarded contract by a notification of award dated 27.06.2025, for a contract price of Rs.5,17,50,000/-, exclusive of GST, in accordance with the 10 terms and conditions of the tender documents, emphasizes that Clause No. 13 of e-Reverse Auction (e-RA) guidelines which stipulates 'POWERGRID shall not have any liability to bidders for any interruption or delay in access to the site, irrespective of the cause', is crucial for effective adjudication of the case. Petitioner's entire case is based on a technical glitch, which, according to this clause, cannot be a valid reason for reopening the entire tendering process; on line tenders and auctions have been in use for a sufficient amount of time and technical glitches should not be a ground for a Writ Petition. It is further argued that petitioner, who regularly participated in bids by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, should have logged in from a compatible device to avoid such issues.
5.1. This counter also refers to Clause No. 3 which shows that Respondents 1 and 2 provided training for participating in reverse auction process. Auction started at 11:00 am and concluded at 02:20 pm. Respondent No. 3 made three quotes: the first at 12:35:02 pm on 24.06.2025, the second at 12:57:04 pm and the third at 01:38:13 pm. Auction ended at 02:20:34 pm. This demonstrates that petitioner had sufficient time to submit its bids. Even if the alleged error at 2:09 pm is believed to be true, auction started at 11:00 am, giving petitioner sufficient time to place a bid. The screenshot 11 provided by petitioner is an illegible document and Respondent No. 3 reserves the right to file an additional counter-affidavit upon receiving a clear copy. It is also noted that the timing of the screenshot at page 65 is 14:30 on 24.06.2025, which is inconsistent with petitioner's claim of a technical issue at 2:09 pm. Petitioner has not provided any proof of the alleged "404" technical error through a screenshot or a mobile picture of the computer screen. It is also argued that the terms and conditions of e-auction process clearly state that no liability can be fastened for technical failure, and on this ground alone, the Writ Petition should be dismissed. The inconsistency in the petitioner's pleadings is also pointed out: in the letter dated 24.06.2025 to Respondents 1 and 2, petitioner referred to a "404" technical error, while in the Writ Petition, it relied on an error of "No support for Java APPLET." It is further submitted that a 404 error would have made the website non-functional for all users, not just petitioner.
5.2. It is argued that petitioner should have filed proof of the precautions taken before participating in e-auction. They being well aware of the process from previous auctions, should have logged in from compatible devices and followed the protocols to avoid technical failures. The entire Writ Petition is described as being "bereft of any merits."
12
6. Petitioner filed reply stating that on 23.06.2025, a day before e-RA, respondents' team conducted a technical induction program and themselves installed the necessary software on petitioner's systems to facilitate participation. As per respondents' own Exhibit No. 6, which shows that petitioner successfully logged into the portal during e-RA, a fact that contradicts the respondents' claim that petitioner did not adhere to the prerequisites. It is illogical for respondents to claim the petitioner failed to follow the settings while simultaneously providing evidence of petitioner's successful login four times. The petitioner maintains that it had duly followed the system settings as configured by respondents' own team but was deprived of a fair opportunity due to a technical glitch at approximately 14:09 hours on 24.06.2025. 6.1. Petitioner states that it was in a state of panic and distress when the technical glitch occurred at 14:09 hours and immediately tried to contact respondents' helpdesk and officials, including Ms. Manogna, but received no response. As a result, they were unable to capture a screenshot at that precise moment and was compelled to submit a screenshot showing the time as 14:30 hours. Petitioner admits that it is not a new participant in the tenders and e-RA processes; they are fully aware of e-RA procedures; they received training from the 13 Corporate Centre Enterprising Resource Planning Team (CC- ERP Team) on 23.06.2025.
6.2. Petitioner cites Clause 29 of the instructions-to- bidders (ITB) and e-RA guidelines, which state the criteria for e-RA eligibility. Referring to Bid Comparison Statement (Annexure-II), which shows petitioner as 'X1', followed by A. V. Mohan Reddy as 'X2' and Sri Lakshmi Constructions as 'X3', petitioner asserts that all the three bidders fall within the eligibility criteria, hence, respondents' claim that A. V. Mohan Reddy was not eligible while Sri Lakshmi Constructions was eligible raises serious questions about the fairness and transparency of the e-RA process.
6.3. It is stated, during the training and induction program, the CC-ERP team remotely accessed and configured petitioner's systems; if its system was not JAVA-supported, this default is solely attributable to respondents, who configured the system without raising this issue. In an e-RA with only two tenderers, the established practice of respondents is to verify if a bidder's failure to submit a counter-bid is a deliberate withdrawal or a technical problem. Respondents failed to follow this practice despite being informed of the issue on 24.06.2025. It is clarified that respondents themselves had configured two computers for petitioner to ensure backup in case of issues; 14 they used the second computer only after the first one faced the technical glitch, a fact well known to respondents. Petitioner asserts that balance of convenience lies in its favor and that no prejudice would be caused to respondents if e-RA is re-conducted.
7. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, they point to the screenshot submitted by petitioner, which clearly displayed the error message "No Support for JAVA APPLET!!". Respondents clarify that this specific error message appears only when a browser other than the one with an Internet Explorer mode is used. The respondents explain that while a user can still log in and even place bids without adhering to these settings, the portal may behave erratically and cause issues. The affidavit further clarifies the status of Sri. A. V. Mohan Reddy who was X2 bidder on the price comparison sheet from PRANIT portal. However, his bid was declared "non-response" because his price bid file had become corrupt and could not be opened, leading to its rejection which is in accordance with the tender provisions and that the said Mohan Reddy gracefully accepted his bid rejection. Respondents express their surprise that petitioner, who was previously awarded contracts through the same e-RA portal, is now questioning its fairness and transparency only 15 because its bid failed to be placed in time due to its own actions.
7.1. The affidavit provides a breakdown of the three stages of the tendering process. The first stage is technical evaluation; the second stage involves opening the price bids, where the lowest bidder is marked as X1, the next as X2, and so on. Eligible bidders for the third stage are finalized based on bidding conditions. The third stage is e-Reverse Auction (e-RA). e-RA is a process where bidders offer prices lower than the X1 bidder's price. The initial e-RA window is for 2 hours, from 11:00 hrs to 13:00 Hrs. If no bid is submitted during this period, auction ends and X1 bidder is awarded the contract. If a bid is submitted during the last 20 minutes (from 12:40 to 13:00 Hrs), the auction automatically extends for another 20 minutes. This auto-extension continues until no offer is received in the final 20-minute slot, at which point, the bidder who submitted the last bid is declared L1 by the system. The respondents emphasize that there is no possibility of manually extending e-RA.
7.2. In the present case, petitioner did not submit any bid in the final 20-minute slot between 14:00 to 14:20. The auction thus ended at 14:20, and the last bid was submitted by Respondent No. 3, who was declared L1. The affidavit provides 16 the final price of petitioner as Rs. 6,12,08,000/- (including GST) and the final price of Respondent No. 3 as Rs. 6,10,65,000/- (inclusive of GST), showing that Respondent No. 3's bid was lower. The prices excluding GST were Rs. 5,18,71,186/- for petitioner and Rs. 5,17,50,000/- for Respondent No. 3. After e-RA, the portal declared Respondent No. 3 the successful bidder, and Notification of the Award dated 27.06.2025 vide Ref:
SR-1/C&M/WC-4078/NOA-4270/2025 was issued. This was done before respondents received notice of the present writ petition on 28.06.2025.
7.3. Respondents therefore, submit that Writ Petition was filed solely to frustrate the valid NOA Dt. 27.06.2025, which was issued through a proper e-RA process. Hence, they pray that this Court may dismiss the Writ Petition as being without merit. They state that if the Writ Petition is not dismissed, POWERGRID will face financial losses due to delays in a project of national importance and may invite similar litigation from other unsuccessful bidders.
8. An additional affidavit was filed by petitioner. In compliance with the order dated 31.07.2025, which directed both the parties to provide information on the quantum of bids and counterbids placed during the e-RA process, this affidavit states that after the successful completion of the "Single Stage 17 Two Envelope Biding" procedure, petitioner was declared the Lowest Evaluated Bidder (X1), followed by AV Mohan Reddy as X2 and Respondent No. 3 as X3. However, only petitioner and Respondent No. 3 were given the opportunity to participate in the e-RA. The petitioner points out that AV Mohan Reddy, despite being declared X2, was not allowed to participate because, as stated in Paragraph No. 6 of the Additional Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, his price bid uploaded to the PRANIT portal had become "corrupt and could not be opened."
The petitioner argues that this incident clearly indicates a "technical irregularity and unusuality" in the PRANIT portal or the respondents' website concerning the tender and e-RA process conducted on 24.06.2025.
8.1. Petitioner asserts that it was actively participating and continuously offering counterbids in e-RA until a technical glitch occurred on e-RA portal at 2:09 PM on 24.06.2025. The affidavit includes a Live Bid-Auction Cockpit Trial sheet as evidence, which, according to petitioner, demonstrates its willingness to continue participating had the technical glitch not occurred. Petitioner then provides details of two other tenders to support its argument. In the first tender, for construction of township (residential quarters) at Kurnool-III pooling station, petitioner was declared L1 and was awarded tender. The Rank 18 Wise Bidder Details and Live Auction Cockpit for this tender are cited to show that e-RA process lasted for almost 3 days. The starting price was Rs. 10,47,52,692/-, and the final price was Rs. 9,35,69,898/-. This resulted in a price reduction of Rs. 1,11,82,793/- for the respondent corporation. In the second tender, for construction of a community centre at 750/400 KV Kurnool (Oravakal) Sub-Station under Transmission, petitioner was declared L2. The Rank-Wise Bidder Details and Live Auction Cockpit for this tender also show that the e-RA process extended for almost 3 days. The starting price was Rs. 3,67,24,386/-, which was finalized at Rs.2,85,00,000/-. This led to a price reduction of Rs. 82,24,386/- for the respondent corporation.
9. Heard M/s Indus Law Firm learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Valluri Mohan Srinivas, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Thomas George, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
10. In support of their case, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karix Mobile Private Limited v. Union of India 1, Jindal Steel and Power Limited v. Union of India 2, Master Marine 1 2025 SCC On line Del 1959 2 2023 SCC Online Del 4401 19 Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson(P) Ltd. 3M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal 4 and Alkhnanda Stone Crusher v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P.No. 23858 of 2023).
11. At the threshold, a perusal of the e-RA guidelines Clause 13 shows that 'POWERGRID shall not have any liability to bidders for any interruption or delay in access to the site irrespective of the cause'. However, the core of petitioner's argument rests on a technical glitch that prevented it from bidding. As is evident from the counter, petitioner is thoroughly aware of the process and procedure of e-RA; they were trained by the CC-ERP team of the respondent on 23.06.2025 i.e. one day prior to the date of bidding; as per which, it is a pre- requisite to use 'Microsoft Edge in Internet Explorer mode' while participating in e-RA, however, as per the screenshot shared by petitioner, it is disclosed that they were using Microsoft Edge browser but without internet Explorer mode. Hence, it was convincingly demonstrated that the alleged 'glitch' was a direct consequence of petitioner's failure to adhere to the mandatory "Pre-Requisite System Settings" of PRANIT portal. According to respondents, the error message 'No support for Java APPLET!!' 3 (2005) 6 SCC 138 4 (1975) 1 SCC 70 20 is a clear indication that petitioner was not using the required "Microsoft Edge in Internet Explorer mode." This fundamental non-compliance, despite petitioner's admitted prior experience and having received specific training from CC-ERP team on 23.06.2025, undermines their claim of a system-wide technical failure.
12. It is also to be noted, petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding the nature of technical error. In the letter dated 24.06.2025, the error was described as '404' error, whereas in the Writ Petition, it is cited as "No support for Java APPLET!!". Furthermore, the screenshot provided by them shows time - 14:30 hrs, which is after the auction was already concluded at 14:20 hrs. This suggests that petitioner did not capture a real-time issue but rather a post-auction screenshot, casting serious doubt on the veracity of the claim.
13. Respondents provided detailed logs and a System Availability Report from CC-ERP, which confirms that the portal was 100% functional and available throughout e-RA process on 24.06.2025. The fact that other bidders, including the successful bidder, Respondent No. 3, were able to participate and place bids without any reported issues further disproves petitioner's allegation of a systemic technical glitch. The rejection of AV Mohan Reddy's bid due to a "corrupt" file is an 21 independent issue related to bidder's own system and not an irregularity with e-RA portal itself.
14. While petitioner claims a frustrated legitimate expectation, this doctrine is not applicable where the party itself has failed to meet the basic requirements of the process. Petitioner's failure to follow the pre-requisite system settings disqualifies it from claiming a legitimate expectation of a flawless bidding experience. The tender documents, specifically Clause 13, explicitly indemnify the respondents from liability for technical issues faced by bidders, irrespective of the cause. Hence, the Notification of Award dated 27.06.2025 was issued to the successful bidder, Respondent No. 3, after e-RA had already concluded. Respondents received notice of the present Writ Petition on 28.06.2025, a day after the tender process was complete. Therefore, the Writ Petition is infructuous as the contract has already been awarded and executed. The Court cannot interfere with a completed contract unless there is evidence of mala fide intent or a clear violation of a statutory provision, neither of which has been sufficiently proven by petitioner. Any intervention, at this stage, would cause grave prejudice to the successful bidder and result in significant financial losses to the public exchequer due to project delays. 22
15. Yet another aspect is, after completion of e-RA, the final quoted price of petitioner was Rs.6,12,08,000/- (including GST) whereas the final quoted price of Respondent No.3 was Rs.6,10,65,000/- (inclusive GST) which is less than that of petitioner. The final price of petitioner excluding GST was Rs.5,18,71,186/- whereas that of Respondent No.3 was Rs.5,17,50,000/-, therefore, after completion of e-RA process, the portal has declared Respondent No.3 as the successful bidder. The said action of Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be said to be illegal.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that petitioner failed to substantiate its claims of a technical glitch attributable to respondents' e-RA portal. Their failure to submit a timely bid was a direct consequence of its own non- compliance with the tender's prerequisite system settings. In view of the same, the reliance placed on the judgments noted above is not applicable to the case on hand. The actions of the respondents in refusing to re-conduct the e-RA were in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender and were justified. The Writ Petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
23
17. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
18. Consequently, the interim order dated 30.06.2025 shall stand dissolved.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 23rd September 2025 ksld