Telangana High Court
M/S. Nava Nirman Associates vs The State Of Telangana on 3 July, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITIONS No. 19593, 24727 AND 30728 OF 2024
AND
I.A.No. 2 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION No. 24727 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since parties to these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024, Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 19593 and 30728 of 2024 and Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024, Sri M. Vigneswar Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings and Sri K. Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition Nos. 19593 and 30728 of 2024 and Respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024.
3. WP No. 19593 OF 2024:
The case of Petitioner - registered partnership firm under the provisions of the Partnership Act is that, they are in the business of central lightning works, advertisements which includes display boards, LED displays, hoardings, lollipops, 2 cantilevers, etcetera. In the process of business activities, they made representation to Respondent No. 2 dated 02.02.2024 seeking contract for erection of advertisement boards on R&B Department Road on BOT basis and Respondent No. 2 in response to the said representation issued letter dated 12.02.2024 according permission to install advertisement boards in Respondent No. 3 - Municipality on Radial Roads No. 7 and 30 extension for a total distance of 11.95 km subject to conditions for a period of 5 years. In lieu thereof, it is obligated to take up avenue plantation and beautification of 45.0M dia Rotary at KM 1/100 on Radial Road No. 7 and to regular maintenance work at the cost of Petitioner for 11.95 Km i.e. for a length of 5.77 Km from KM 0/800 to KM 6/570 on Radial Road No. 7 and for a length of 6.18 Km to KM 1/600 to KM 7/780 on Radial Road No. 30 extension and also take up Avenue Plantation and Beautification of 45.0 M DIA Rotary at KM 1/800 on Radial Road No. 7 with an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs per annum with average escalation of about 2.50% every year and the approximate estimation for providing Central Lightning will be Rs. 4,78,00,000/- (Rs. 40 lakhs for each Km). Petitioner has given bank guarantee for Rs. 5 lakhs and entered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 12.02.2024 mentioning the terms and conditions for execution of subject 3 works. Pursuant to the said MoU, Respondent No. 2 addressed letter dated 11.03.2024 to Respondent No. 3 not to issue any permissions and No Objection Certificate to any other agencies for the purpose of erection of advertisement boards in respect of two roads namely Radial Road No. 7 and 30 extension. Basing on the said awarding of the contract, Petitioner made an Application to Respondent No. 3 seeking permission for erection of advertisement boards who in turn issued permission vide letter dated 27.02.2024.
Acting upon the contract/MoU dated 12.02.2024, Petitioner mobilised men and machinery for commencement and completion of subject contracts and completed the entire work on Radial Road No. 7 and the same is put to use. It is the case of Petitioner that Respondent No. 2 did not commence the work of construction of central median / divider on Radial Road No. 30 extension thereby Petitioner could not commence on the said road and the same is kept due till date. As such petitioner had given the representation dated 18.06.2024 to Respondent No. 2 calling upon them to commence and complete the central median on Radial Road No. 30 extension, followed by another representation dated 15.07.2024, however, there is no response. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of Petitioner through Respondent No. 3 that Respondent No. 2 had entered into a 4 separate MoU dated 24.06.2024 with Respondent No. 4 in respect of Radial Road No. 30 without any notice or proceedings to Petitioner which is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be declared as null and void. In the contents of the disputed MoU dated 24.06.2024, it is alleged by Respondent No. 2 that Petitioner did not commence work for providing central lightning and upon public request to provide central lightning immediately, Respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the work of central lightning of Radial Road No. 30 extension and entrusted to Respondent No. 4.
It is stated, Petitioner had not violated the terms and conditions of MoU dated 12.02.2024, hence, withdrawing of work in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension and entering into MoU with Respondent No. 4 is illegal and the same is liable to be revoked and suspended.
4. Counter Affidavit is filed by Respondent No. 2, gist of which is that they requested Petitioner vide office notice dated 15.04.2024 to start the work of providing central lightning on Radial Road No. 30 extension immediately failing which action would be taken as per the terms and conditions of MoU; further, public is requesting to provide central lightning immediately as they are facing lot of inconvenience due to non-providing of central lightning and since Petitioner has not started the work, 5 Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 18.06.2024, had withdrawn the subject contract under Clause 19 of the MoU which states that "The permission may be cancelled at any time by the government for breach of any condition of MoU and advertising agencies shall not be entitled to claim any compensation for any liability already incurred under this agreement". It is not necessary for Respondent No. 2 to form the median/divider before installation of central lightning. The median/divider shall also be formed after installation of central lighting as the early providing of central lighting will be illuminate during night time to avoid accidents if any.
5. The contention of Respondent No. 4 who is the beneficiary of award of contract of Radial Road No. 30 extension after withdrawing from Petitioner, is that it has got vast experience and made a representation on 19.06.2024 to Respondent No. 2 for permission to erect cantilever boards, etc. on Radial Road No. 30 extension. Responding to the said representation, Respondent No. 2 accorded permission/awarded contract to Respondent No.4 agency to put up advertisement boards vide letter dated 21.06.2024. The approximate amount for providing central lighting for a length of 6.18 km is Rs. 2,47,20,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty-Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand only); maintenance is estimated at Rs. 7 6 lakhs per annum and Respondent No. 4 submitted a Demand Draft for Rs. 5 lakhs towards security deposit vide DD No. 45661883 dated 24.06.2024 drawn on Union Bank of India, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and the same was followed by execution of MoU dated 24.06.2024. Respondent No. 4, acting upon the MoU, had issued work order to one Laxmi Engineering Works Hyderabad and other fabricators for fabrication and installation of 30 T-poles and 250 electric poles of a total value of Rs. 2 crores plus applicable taxes and an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs for procuring necessary infrastructure mainly lead-thread lights, etcetera and engage civil contractors and landscaping contractors, paid advances, etcetera, thereby sought to dismiss the Writ Petition as Petitioner had approached this Court only to cover up their laxity in initiating the work allotted by Respondent No. 2.
6. WP NO. 24727 OF 2024:
This Writ Petition is filed by a registered partnership firm challenging the allotment of work by Respondent No. 2 in respect of providing central lighting, etcetera on BOT basis in favour of Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024. The basic contention of Petitioner is that awarding of subject contracts by Respondent No. 2 is against the settled principle of law that government contracts cannot be 7 given on pick and choose basis as per the whims and fancies of the authorities. It is the further case of Petitioner that they had participated in negotiations for grant of subject contracts and without following due procedure, Respondent No. 2 had allotted subject contracts to Petitioner and Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024. The principal challenge in this Writ Petition is violation of procedure and law. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 was arrayed as Respondent No. 4 in this Writ Petition and Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 as Respondent No. 5.
It is stated, by the time of submitting representation dated 06.08.2024, work was in progress in the Radial Roads; meanwhile, Writ Petition pertaining to subject issue was pending and the truth is that Petitioner is not aware of awarding of works to Respondent firms and that Respondent authorities followed pick and choose method as alleged in representation dated 22.08.2024 and there is involvement of public money.
7. Respondent No. 2 denied that subject contracts were given to Respondents without following due process of law. An amount of Rs. 5.20 crores are being saved to government, as such Respondent No. 2 entered into MoUs with Respondents 4 and 5 and in view of the delay in latches in commencement of 8 work and completion of the same in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension, the same was withdrawn and awarded to Respondent No. 5 on 24.06.2024 and the same cannot be found fault either by Petitioner or by Respondent No. 4.
8. Respondent No. 4 filed counter contending that Writ Petition is not maintainable and Petitioner is a partnership firm represented by the Managing Partner S. Narsing Rao and Respondent No. 5 is also represented by S. Narsing Rao and that they question the action of Respondent No. 2 in withdrawing the work in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension and awarding the same to Respondent No. 5 vide MoU dated 24.06.2024 in Writ Petitions No. 19593 and 30728 of 2024. It is denied that the method of pick and choose in awarding contracts is not in the knowledge of Respondent No. 4, which was awarded contract vide MoU dated 12.02.2024 in respect of two works namely Radial Roads No. 7 30 extension on BOT basis and based on which, Respondent No. 4 commenced and completed work in respect of Radial Road No. 7 and behind the back of Petitioner, subject work in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension was withdrawn on the ground that Respondent No. 4 did not commence work and awarded the same to Respondent No. 5. Prior to withdrawing the work in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension, no show cause notice was served 9 to Respondent No. 4 and no opportunity was given. It is the further case of Respondent No. 4 that Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 firm are represented by S. Narsing Rao and it seems that S. Narsing Rao had filed the present Writ Petition questioning the allotment of work under BOT being the beneficiary of the same as such Petitioner had filed perjury petition in the present Writ Petition being I.A No. 2 of 2024 for suppression of facts and misrepresentation.
9. Petitioner filed counter in IA No. 2 of 2024 denying the allegations and adverse averments made by Respondent No. 4 in perjury application contending that Respondent No. 5 though is a partner in Petitioner firm, had acted in detriment to the interest of Petitioner firm and behind the back of the said firm, had obtained subject contract and entered into an MoU on 24.06.2024 in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension. The acts of commission and omission of Respondent No. 5 is in violation of the provisions of Partnership Act. As such, the Petitioner had challenged the awarding of contract in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension in favour of Respondent No. 4 and sought for dismissal of IA No. 2 of 2024.
10. WP NO. 30728 OF 2024:
This Writ Petition is filed by the very same Petitioner who filed Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 challenging 10 the action of Respondent No. 2 in issuing letter dated 18.06.2024 withdrawing part of the work in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension without giving any opportunity of hearing and allotting the work to Respondent No. 4 and entering into MoU dated 24.06.2024 as illegal and is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the MoU dated 24.06.2024 and letter dated 18.06.2024 and also to declare letter dated 21.06.2024 as illegal.
11. The factual matrix of this Writ Petition is identical to that of Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024; so also is the stand taken by the contesting Respondents. Hence, this Court is not extracting the averments made in Writ Affidavits and the respective counters filed by Respondent No. 2. In response to the averments made by Respondent No. 2, reply has been filed contending that Respondent No. 2 had not commenced any work of laying central median and without issuing notice to Petitioner, created letters dated 15.04.2024 and 18.06.2024 and without serving the same, had withdrawn the work only to favour Respondent No. 4 and entered into MoU on 24.06.2024. It is strongly disputed by Petitioner that letter dated 18.06.2024 was dispatched on 19.06.2024 and service of the same on them. Though Petitioner had made repeated requests for construction of central median, Respondent No. 2 did not respond and 11 started construction and Petitioner is handicapped to commence the work in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension. There is no breach of terms and conditions of MoU dated 12.02.2024 by Petitioner, thereby Respondent No. 2 cannot invoke Clause 19. As such, withdrawal of work inter alia Radial Road No. 30 extension which is the subject matter of MoU dated 12.02.2024 is arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice.
12. Having perused the material on record and having considered the arguments advanced on either side, points that emerge for consideration in these Writ Petitions are: -
i) Whether granting of contract to Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 is valid and is in accordance with law?
ii) Whether withdrawal of part of the contract from the Petitioner and allotting the same to Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 is valid and is in accordance with law?
iii) Whether challenge made by Petitioner in Writ Petition No.24727 of 2024 vis-a-vis the subject contract to Petitioner and Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.19593 of 2024 is valid and if so, as a consequence, the subject contracts are to be set aside?12
iv) Whether there is suppression of fact by Petitioner in Writ Petition No.24727 of 2024 and thereby is guilty of Perjury?
13. The admitted facts are that Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 had awarded contract of execution of central lighting etcetera on BOT basis to Petitioner; in response to representation dated 02.02.2024, contract was awarded vide letter dated 12.02.2024 for installation of central lighting at the cost of Petitioner for a distance of 11.95 km in Respondent No. 3 Municipality on Radial Road No. 7 and Radial Road No. 30 extension. Acting upon the said awarding of contract, Petitioner completed work on Radial Road No. 7, however, the work on Radial Road No. 30 extension was not commenced. Thereupon, Respondent No. 2 had withdrawn the work in respect of Radial Road No. 30 extension from Petitioner and awarded the same to Respondent No. 4 vide MoU dated 24.06.2024. Awarding of work to Respondent No.4 by Respondent No. 2 is the challenge in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024.
14. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024 had challenged the acts of commission of Respondent No. 2 in awarding contracts mentioned supra to Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 contending that Respondent No. 2 has not followed the procedure in 13 awarding government contracts and issuance of subject contract on nomination basis to the individuals without floating tenders is illegal and is against the settled principles of law. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider that Respondent No. 2 is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is settled principle of law that having regard to the provisions of Article 14, a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 cannot distribute its largesse at its own wish and will. The Courts can ensure that statutory functions are not carried out at the whims and caprices of the officers of the government/local body in an arbitrary manner. It is also settled law that the State and its instrumentalities should not give contracts by private negotiations but by open public auction/tender after wide publicity. In the instant case, the subject contracts were given by private negotiation which is impermissible in law.
15. Article 14 of the Constitution mandates that contracts by the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies must be granted through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and Notification of 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 14 matter of auction, technical specifications, etcetera. The action of the State must be legitimate and its dealings must be aboveboard. Nothing should be done by the State while awarding contracts which gives an impression of bias, favouritism or nepotism. Law is, thus clear that all contracts of the government or by an instrumentality of the State should be granted only by public auction or by inviting tenders, after advertising the same in well known newspapers having wide circulation so that all eligible persons will have an opportunity to abide by the tender notifications and there is total transparency.
16. In view of the settled law as discussed above, this Court considers the acts of Respondent No. 2 in awarding contract to Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 vide MoU dated 12.02.2024 and 24.06.2024 respectively is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be allowed to sustain.
17. In the result, contracts awarded to Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 vide MoU's dated 12.02.2024 and 24.06.2024 are set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to initiate fresh proceedings inviting tender for the work on Radial Road No. 30 extension for a length of 6.18 Km from KM 1/600 to KM 7/780 which is allotted to Respondent No. 4, by giving wide publicity 15 in the daily newspapers in the locality. Consequently, Writ Petitions No. 19593 and 30728 of 2024 are dismissed and Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024 is allowed.
18. Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024 filed I.A.No. 2 of 2024 to initiate perjury against Petitioner therein. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed contending that petitioner in this Application is writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 2024 and is guilty of suppression of fact for the reason that they filed Writ Petitions No. 19593 and 30728 of 2024. In Writ Petition No. 30728 of 2024, there is clear suppression of fact of having knowledge and notice of pendency of Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024 and suppressing the same, had filed Writ Petition No. 30728 of 2024. The other anomaly pointed out by Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024 is that even in Writ Petition No. 30728 of 2024, they were not arrayed as party. Hence, it is the case of suppression of fact by Petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 19593 and 30728 of 2024. The details of filing of Writ Petitions, date of filing of Writ Petitions are categorical to show that there is clear suppression of fact of pendency of Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024 which was filed on 05.09.2024, whereas Writ Petition No. 30728 of 2024 was filed on 04.01.2024. Thus, Petitioner in I.A. No. 2 of 2024 is guilty of suppression of fact. These sequences of events are not in 16 challenge nor rebutted by petitioner in I.A. No. 2 of 2024 but for reiterating his assertions seeking the relief to prosecute Petitioner under Section 342 CrPC for misrepresentation and filing of false affidavit.
19. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024 is a registered partnership firm and is being represented by its managing partner, thereby it is incorrect that Mr. S.Narsing Rao is representing Writ Petitioner, as such all the averments of the affidavit are liable to be rejected. Further acknowledgment of the firm dated 28.10.2016 and IT returns filed pertaining to Writ Petitioner are of 2016 which are very old, thereby it is not safe to rely upon the same in coming to an adverse conclusion against Petitioner in Writ Petition No.24727 of 2024. Furthermore, it is categorically asserted by Respondent No.1 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 that Mr. S. Narsing Rao, proprietor of Respondent No. 5 in I.A. No. 2 of 2024, though is a minor partner of the Writ Petitioner firm herein, is acting against the interest of the partnership firm; after coming to know about his activity in obtaining the subject contract, Writ Petition No. 24727 of 2024 was filed. S.Narsing Rao is a minority shareholder in the partnership firm and as his activities were detrimental to the interest of the partnership firm i.e. Writ Petitioner firm and behind the back of writ petitioner was keen 17 in obtaining the subject contract, in an illegal manner. The conduct of Writ Petitioner in filing the present Writ Petition making Respondent No.5 as party Respondent demonstrates the action of Writ Petitioner Partnership firm against the commission and omission of Respondent No. 5 represented by S. Narsing Rao. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is no act of perjury committed by Writ Petitioner in filing the above Writ Petition. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
20. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
------------ -------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 03rd July 2025 ksld