WP/15572/2026 of M/s.Vinayaka Enterprises Vs The Chairman and Managing Director on 8 September 2026

O R D E R:

Respondent authorities rejected the offer/bid of Petitioner and awarded tender to Respondent No.5 pursuant to the impugned Tender Notification issued by Respondent No.3 pertaining to the works of Mill Rejects. The same is questioned in this Writ Petition.

2. The case of petitioner is that, Respondent No.3, on behalf of Respondent No.1, called for an open tender for loading and unloading and cleaning of Mill Rejects Coal, debris and coal on Feeder’s Floor Area and transporting the same in KPTS VII Stage as and when required during FY-2026-27 and dumping the same in the dumping yard, with an estimated value at Rs.29,22,121/-. Clause No.6 of the Tender Form required the participant Bidder/Firm to submit documentary evidence of Similar Work Experience in execution of works, i.e., transportation of Mill Rejects.

2.1. It is also stated, petitioner addressed letter dated 13-03-2026 to respondent authorities requesting review of the Similar Work Experience eligibility condition, since in earlier Tender Notifications also, the authorities had recalled the condition relating to Similar Nature of Work. In an earlier instance, a Corrigendum was issued stating that the experience condition, which is kept under mandatory is considered as optional. Tender was extended. According to Petitioner, despite this earlier position, the same unreasonable condition requiring Similar Work Experience in execution of Transportation of Mill Rejects was again incorporated in the present tender.

2.2. Pursuant to the Tender Notification, Petitioner is stated to have offered bid on 08-03-2026 within the stipulated time, along with all testimonials, required documents and necessary fee and uploaded documents evidencing Similar Work Experience and similar nature of works in accordance with the Tender Conditions, with a Contract Value of

Rs.6,24,816/-, whereas the other bidders quoted amounts higher than the Tender Value. Petitioner therefore contends that its bid was the lowest and most reasonable.

2.3. After evaluation of bids, on 09-03-2026, Petitioner’s bid was rejected on the ground that it did not meet the eligibility criterion of Similar Work Experience and awarded tender to Respondent No.5, who quoted Rs.15,75,000/-. Petitioner alleges that Respondents 3 and 4 rejected its bid with a pre-determined intention to allot the tender to persons of their choice. It is further alleged that respondent authorities intentionally and calculatedly enhanced the Tender amount from Rs.8,24,800/- to Rs.27,72,000/- with a mischievous intention to accommodate persons/participants of their choice and eliminate other competitive bidders. Respondent No.5 is alleged to have quoted an unreasonable amount and to be not eligible or qualified for award of the tender, but was nevertheless declared successful by the authorities.

2.4. Immediately, it is stated, Petitioner got issued Legal Notice dated 06-04-2026 to respondent authorities calling upon them to cancel the subject tender and call for a fresh tender by following due procedure, but in vain. It is also stated, Respondents and intentionally and maliciously incorporated unreasonable clause in brackets under Clause No.6 relating to Transportation of Mill Rejects, referring to “Similar to Same”, with the intention of eliminating competitive bidders and awarding the tender to a bidder of their choice.

2.5. According to Petitioner, Respondents 1 and 2 were aware of the Tender Rules and Regulations; Respondent No.2 had recently been appointed as Chief Engineer to VII Stage of KTPS and Respondents 3 and 4 took undue advantage of the said fact and maliciously awarded tender to a contractor of their choice in collusion, contrary to the Tender Rules and principles of natural justice. Petitioner’s letter dated 13-03- 2026 addressed to Respondent No.2 requesting to review the matter and do justice, was not considered. The subsequent Legal Notice dated 06-04-2026 calling for cancellation of tender and a fresh tender through a transparent and impartial procedure, also did not result in any positive response or action.

2.6. Petitioner states that, to its knowledge, immediately after evaluation of the tender, a provisional LOI was issued in favour of Respondent No.5, but final LOI had not been issued as on the date of the affidavit. It further asserts that a person dealing with the Government in contractual matters has a legitimate interest or expectation and alleges that respondents acted in a biased manner to obtain wrongful gain with the other bidder, resulting in rejection of Petitioner’s bid without sufficient reason.

3. Respondents 1 to 4, in their counter, raise a preliminary objection that they are not juristic persons in law and refer to Article 300A of the Constitution. It is stated that the impugned Tender Notification was issued by TG GENCO, which is a State enterprise falling within the definition of “State” under Article 12. The employees of the State, irrespective of their rank, cannot sue or be sued on behalf of the State in their individual capacity. Respondents further contend that the doctrine of Dominus Litis is not applicable to writ proceedings and that a writ cannot be maintained against incompetent persons. Since the Tender Notification was issued by TG GENCO, they alone can answer the queries raised by petitioner through any of its authorised employees and not vice versa. In support of the same, respondents rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of A.P. v. The Collector1. It is contended, in proceedings concerning the property or acts of the State, the State is a necessary party and has to be 1 2003 AIR SCW 1251

impleaded in accordance with Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of the CPC. It is stated that every post in the Government hierarchy, from the lowest to the highest, is not recognised as a juristic person and the State cannot be treated as represented merely because a proceeding is instituted in the name of an office/post or officer holding such post. In the absence of the State in the array of parties, the proceeding is liable to fail for non-joinder of a necessary party. Respondents also note the exception recognised in the said judgment where an official acts as a statutory authority and pursues proceedings in its own name.

3.1. Respondents further contend that having participated in the tender process without raising any objection to the tender conditions, petitioner is not entitled to subsequently challenge the said conditions after failing in the tender process. On the objection relating to participation in the tender, it is stated, petitioner had full knowledge of the conditions contained in the impugned Tender Notification, nevertheless participated in the tender without raising any objection and, only after being unsuccessful, approached this Court alleging bias.

3.2. Respondents specifically contend that petitioner did not comply with the Similar Work Experience certificate condition. The work certificate submitted by petitioner relates to “LIFTING ASH FROM ASH POND”, whereas the impugned tender concerns “LOADING AND UNLOADING OF MILL REJECTS COAL ON 24 HOURS BASIS”, and the two works are totally different. Respondents rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited (MANU/SC/0112/2022), wherein it was held that where bidders participate in a tender process with full knowledge of the applicable terms and conditions, they cannot subsequently challenge those conditions after participating in the process. Respondents rely upon the principle that if petitioner was aggrieved by the tender conditions, it ought either not to have participated in the tender or should have challenged the conditions before participating.

3.3. It is also the contention of respondents that petitioner admittedly had no required experience, therefore, considering the extreme technicalities involved in the work, tender was awarded to Respondent No.5, who possessed sufficient experience in the said work. Petitioner has not made out any case of extreme bias, irregularity or unjust action on the part of TG GENCO warranting interference by this Court. It is also stated, considering the nature of work and accidents that had occurred in the past, it was decided to impose the condition requiring a “SIMILAR NATURE OF WORK” certificate. Since petitioner did not furnish a certificate relating to similar nature of work, its bid was rejected. According to respondents, value of bid alone cannot determine award of the contract, hence, Petitioner’s bid was rightly rejected for failure to satisfy the eligibility criteria.

4. Respondent No.5 puts-forward his case that he possesses rich experience in execution of similar works and holds valid experience certificates issued by Respondent No.3, which were duly submitted along with his bid. He submitted bid on 09-03-2026 along with the necessary experience certificates as required under the tender conditions, quoting a highly competitive amount of Rs.15,75,000/-. In contrast, Petitioner did not possess the required experience in similar works and failed to produce relevant certificates establishing such experience. Consequently, Petitioner was technically- disqualified and he was declared the successful bidder and the tender was validly awarded to him vide LOI dated 31-03-2026

and thereafer, respondent authorities issued PO dated 21-05-2026, directing commencement of work and accordingly, he had commenced the work on 03-04-2026 and work has since been progressing continuously, with weighment bills being raised regularly.

4.1. It is also stated that Respondents 1 and 2 adopted a uniform policy decision to make specific work experience strictly mandatory across all their thermal units in the interest of operational safety. In support of the same, Respondent No.5 refers to Yadadri Thermal Power Station (YTPS), where prior experience was made an absolute pre-requisite under NIT/Tender Notice No. e-17/SE/E&M/Stage-II/YTPS/2026-27 for Loading, transportation TGGENCO-YTPS(5X800 MW)- BE-IV unloading and cleaning of mill rejects coal, debris and coal from feeder's flow area, mill pits, mill surrounding area at zero meter and dumping at designated area, under which Respondent No.5 was awarded the work. It is therefore, contended that a similar uniform standard was applied to the KTPS units. Hence, Petitioner’s allegation that experience condition was arbitrarily or selectively imposed only for the subject work is denied as baseless and untenable.

4.2. It is further stated, Petitioner did not challenge the conditions contained in the tender notification either before or during submission of bid. Having participated fully in the tender process and accepted the terms and conditions, they cannot subsequently challenge the same conditions as arbitrary merely because they did not emerge as the successful bidder. Respondent No.5 therefore, contends that Petitioner is legally-estopped from challenging the tender conditions and Writ Petition is frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merits.

5. Petitioner filed reply stating that being a prudent contractor and participant in the tender, they had raised objections regarding the procedure and modus operandi adopted by Respondent Authorities, as Respondent Authorities failed to address their grievances, the contention that Petitioner participated without objection and approached the Court only after failing in the tender is denied as false, untrue, incorrect and a distortion of facts. It is contended, non-joinder of a party is a curable defect and is not fatal. As Dominus Litis, they claim the right to choose the persons against whom they seek relief in the writ petition and contends that they cannot be compelled to implead a party against whom they have no grievance. The objection of Respondents on this ground is therefore, denied as legally-unsustainable.

5.1. Petitioner states that the scope of work concerning Coal Handling Plant knowledge is limited to lifting, cleaning, transporting and dumping mill rejects in the designated yard and does not require the extensive Coal Handling Plant knowledge alleged by Respondents. Similarly, environmental compliance and disposal requirements, according to them, are limited to lifting, cleaning, transporting and dumping the material in the designated yard.

6. Heard Sri Srihari Parasharan, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.V. Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Mohammad Adnan, learned Standing Counsel for TS GENCO and Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.

7. The preliminary objection raised by Respondents 1 to 4 is that relief was sought against non-juristic persons. As rightly contended by learned Standing Counsel, Respondents 1 to 4 are not juristic persons but are only officials of TG GENCO and in the absence of the said company being arrayed as a party respondent to Writ Petition, no relief can be granted. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of A.P. v. The Collector held as under:

“ The question that needs to be addressed is whether the Chief Conservator of Forest as the petitioner/appellant in the writ petition/appeal 'is a mere misdescription for the State of Andhra Pradesh or whether it is a case of non-joinder of the State of Andhra a necessary party. In a lis dealing with the property of a State, there can be no dispute that the State is the necessary party and should be impleaded as provided in Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of C.P.C., viz., in the name of the State/Union of India, as the case may be, lest the suit will be bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. Every post in the hierarchy of the posts in the Government set-up, from the lowest to the highest, is not recognised as represented when a a juristic person nor can the State be treated as suit/proceeding is in the name of such offices/posts or the officers holding such posts, therefore, in the absence of the State in the array of parties, the cause will be defeated for non-joinder of a necessary party to the lis, in any court or Tribunal. We make it clear that this a principle does not apply to a case where an official of the Government acts as a statutory authority and sues or pursues further proceeding in its name because in that event, it will not be a suit or proceeding for or on behalf of a State/Union of India but by the statutory authority as such"

8. In view of the law laid down on this aspect, it is to be held that Respondents 1 to 4 are non-juristic persons and writ Court cannot exercise powers against incompetent persons more particularly when tender notification is issued by the TG GENCO, then TG GENCO alone can answer all the queries raised by petitioner and Section 79 CPC makes it abundantly clear.

9. The next objection raised by Respondents is that having participated in the tender process without any objection to any conditions, petitioner is not entitled to challenge the conditions later. Here, it is to be noted the said issued fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited (supra), wherein it has been held as under:

"

14. Now so far as the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order that Clause 28 under Clause (e) of Option A Section 1 and Clause 42.5 of ITB are patently illegal, inasmuch as they seek to curtail the right of the bidders to challenge the rejection of their bid in a multi- stage bidding process at the earliest, and before the award of the contract is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the aforesaid clauses of the ITB were not under challenge before the High Court. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 of ITB were well within the knowledge of the original writ petitioner at the time of participating in the tender process. The aforesaid clauses of the ITB were put to the knowledge of all the participants/bidders and the same applied to all. Despite the above clauses in the ITB, original writ petitioner participated in the tender process. Therefore, once having accepted the terms and conditions of the tender process with the full knowledge of Clauses 28.1 and 42.5, and participated with full knowledge, thereafter, it was not open for the original writ petitioner to make a grievance with respect to such clauses.

14.5. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 are patently illegal, more particularly, in absence of any challenge to the same and also on having knowledge of the aforesaid clauses in the ITB, thereafter it was not open for the original writ petitioner to challenge the same. The original writ petitioner was knowing right from the very beginning with respect to the confidentiality clause contained in Clause 28 and that grounds on which the Bids of unsuccessful Bidders are not selected shall be communicated only after a final decision to award the contract is communicated under Clause 42. If the original writ petitioner was aggrieved either it would not have participated and/or ought to have challenged such clauses before participating in the tender process. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 as patently illegal cannot sustain and the same also deserves to be quashed and set aside".

10. The principle stated in the aforesaid judgment is relevant to the extent that a bidder who participates in a tender process cannot ordinarily seek to invalidate the tender conditions merely because the result is adverse to him.

In the light of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, decides that petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.

11. Further, it is also to be noted, the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited. The Court is concerned with the legality and fairness of the decision- making process and does not ordinarily undertake a fresh technical evaluation of the bids. In the present case, respondents have identified the specific deficiency in Petitioner’s bid and explained why the experience documents produced by them were not treated as satisfying the Similar Work Experience requirement. Unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, irrational or contrary to the tender conditions, the Court would not substitute its own assessment merely because a different view may also be possible. Petitioner has not demonstrated that respondents departed from Clause No.6, applied a different condition to him, granted Respondent No.5 an exemption from the prescribed requirement, or altered the eligibility condition after receipt of the bids. The allegation of bias or mala fides therefore, remains unsupported by sufficient material.

12. Accordingly, challenge to rejection of Petitioner’s bid and consequential award of tender to Respondent No.5 cannot be accepted. No case is made out for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing cancellation of tender or for directing respondents to conduct a fresh tender.

13. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

14. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 08th September 2026 ksld