WP/28982/2025 of Mahanandhi Builders Vs Telangana Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited (TRSCL) on 9 January 2026

ORDER:

Chatlenging the proceedings of Respondent No.1 - Telangana Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited (Corporation) dated 21.O1.2025 cancelling allotment of AO2 Tower to petitioner, this Writ Petition is filed. Petitioner seeks to cancel the proposal of the Corporation to sell the semi-finished flats in Tower AO2 in Sadbhavana Township, Pocharam Municipality, Ghatkesar, Medchal-Malkqjgiri District which was published in the Broacher dated 1O.O9.2O25 and consequently direct respondent - Corporation to renew the time for completion of the project for a period of six months in Tower A02.

=

2. Subsequently, petitioner liled I.A. No. 4 of 2025 seeking t,: amend the prayer by adding a new prayer to declare the action of Respondents in not granting NOC to Petitioner despite tre requests made by them though such an NOC was granted l.o other allottees of other Towers at Pocharam Village, as arbitrary and violative of Article 154 of the Constitution of India.

3. The undisputed factual matrix of the case is that Respond,=nt-Corporation invited Applications in respect of unfinishr:d towers at Pocharam for completing the work. Petitioner was allotted AO2 Tower at Pocharam uide proceedings Lr.No. O4lTRSCLLEM/Unfinished Towers/2023 07.06.2023; they pai,l EMD and also paid part of balance amount, but did n6t com'rlete the work of construction within the permitted time of four months. Petitioner therefore, is stated to have made Application dated O4.1O.2O24 for extension of time and accordir:.gly, time was extended up to O5.OI.2O25 by Corporation's letter dated 17.LO.2O24. However, since petitiont:r failed to pay the amounts within time, the Corporation passed the impugned order of cancellation dated

21. OL.21)25 cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the token advance' and first installment amount of Rs. 3,O5,1O,0OO/-. a' / 9*""9

IJ ,t"(, Petitioner approached the Corporation and submitted letter dated 24.03.2025 for issuance of 'NOC'for completing the work, however, NOC was not given. The Corporation also issued communication to petitioner calling upon to pay Rs. 29.5L Crores. Petitioner submitted a list of 40 members who are ready to purchase the Flats, but 'NOC'was not given. The Corporation brought a proposal to sell the semi-finished flats in Tower AO2 at Pocharam uide its broacher and Notification No. 17ITGRS CL IEM lUnfinished Towers/ 2025dated 1O.O92025. Issuance of NOC by the respondent-Corporation is a must for the builder (petitioner) to obtain loans from the Banks to finish the project. If the respondent-Corporation refuses to give NOC, according to petitioner, it will cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the builder (petitioner) and also to the buyers who purchased Flats through him. 3.1- It is further stated, the Corporation terrninated the contract and issued fresh communication that the tower would be re-allotted to some other builder. Therefore, some of the buyers approached this Court and filed Writ Petition'No. 28502 of 2O2lwherein this Court granted. interim order.

4. Respondent Corporation filed counter mainly contending that the Writ Petition is not maintainable since the ) t l, :: !ii li ti I T

I i ! i I dispute is a commercial/contractual one. It is stated that the Governmr:nt has decided to sell the unfinished towers of the Corporation in 'as is where is' basis and invited bids. As stated above, petitioner was allotted A02 unlinished tower at Pocharam for completion of the work, however, Petitioner failed to make

- prompt F,ayments and hence his allotment was cancelled. They approached this Court challenging that cancellation with an inordinal,e delay of Eight Months from the date of cancellation letter dated 2L.O 1.2025.

5. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Sudhershan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the Respondent Corporation.

6. ' From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that petitioner while admitting its default in making prompt payments within the time stipulated in the contract, contend,:d that cancellation of allotment by the Corporation is arbitranr.

7. The core contention of Respondent Corpbration is that the lis is a commercial/contractual dispute and hence, no Writ of lvlandamus is maintainable. Reliance for this proposition is pla,:ed on Monarch Infrastntcture (/ Ltd. a. i I : ,I I I

o Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal CorTtorationl:' Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. us Sifcte of Karnata.ka2 and G.P. Medical Stores jWMS, rep bg its Pgrtner S.Mohith a Stc:te of Telanganq. rep. bg its Principal Secretary, Medical and Heo.lth Departments. The principle in these pronouncements is that Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if they are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide is actuated by bias, would Courts interfere. Otherwise, the Courts, normally, would not interfere in contractual/commercial disputes,

8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subod h Kumar Songh Rathour a tlu Chief Executiue OfJicer (Civil Appeal No. 674L of 2024, dt.Og.O7.2O24) reported in MANU/SCl0585/2024. In this case, petitioner, who was the successful bidder, was given Memorandum of tender for work. Tn'ereafter, respondent issued a notice to the appellant stating that tender for work of maintenance had been cancelled on account of technical fault in tender. Applying the principle of doctrine of legitimate 'lzoooys scc 287 21zotzy 8 scc 216 ' IZOZ+1SCC Online TS 3321 \ \ : l i I . i I t i : t: I I i i

- ri t. lri iti It !l I I I I I i i expectati()n in public law founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in Government dealing with individuals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding as under: " I30. We are of the considerecl opinion that the litigation at hand is rothing but a classic text book case of an arbitrary exercise of powers try the Respondent in cancelling the tender that was issued in favour ol'the appellant and that too at the behest of none other than the concern€:d Minister-ln-charge and there b1, rendering the Notice of Cancellation dt.O7 .O2.2023 illegal. "

8. 1. This judgment is of no help. The facts in the case on hand are different from the facts of the said case. In the extant case, a(lmittedly, petitioner failed to make payments as stipulated in the terms of contract, in spite of extension of time, within the stipulated time. Therefore, Respondent Corporation was corrstrained to cancel the allotment. There is neither arbitrariness nor it was done at the behest of any person. Once the allotment is cancelled, respondent-Corporation would naturalllr sell the unfinished flats. Further, in the case relied on by petition6r, a judicial review of the act of the respondent (writ of certiorari) was sought for, but not a Mandamus. [n the case on hancl, a writ of Mandamus is sought. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court is sensitizing that the High Courts should n-l I

iI t I I {

o not interfere with the disputes of commercial/contractual in nature unless such disputes are the result of arbitrariness/unfairness etcetera on the part of the state or Instrumentalities of the state. Such disputes have to be decided by the Commercial Courts. g. In contractual agreement, by defaulting in making payments within the time agreed to in the agreement, petitioner committed breach of contract, as such, respondent-corporation has acted upon by issuing the impugned order. In this set of facts, what is the right, much less fundamental/statutory right, of petitioner that was infringed for invoking Article 226 of the constitution is not pleaded or established. It is not even the case of petitioner that respondent Corporation has no competency or authority to pass the impugned order. No public interest element is involved for issuance of a writ of Mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution even. ,

10. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1 1. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Since, Writ Petition itself is dismissed, I.A.No.4 of 2O2S seeking amendment of prayer, also stands dismissed. No costs.

)

/a:\ Ii

12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. .C. SULEKHA DEVI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'O,,,. ONE CC tO SRI VEDULA CHITRALEKHA' AdVOCAIE TOPUCI

2. TwoCCstoADVo-CATEGENERAL,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana at H)rderabad' [OUT]

3. fvv6, CD CoPies DAN BS

-T*. -- --,i-- F , HIGH COURT DATED:09/01 12026

ORDER

WP.No.,28982 ot 2025 S i() [ 2 1::i] 2026 z. * ) \1 * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ks ,l4u I I ii Ei: