THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…may be pleased:

i. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Suspension Letter dated 14.10.2024 (filed as Exhibit P-6), issued by the Respondent.

ii. Direct the respondents to consider the bids of Petitioner in ongoing including future tender processes of Respondent.

iii. to pass…”

2. Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Harshavardhan Abburi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Srikant, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Company, having been registered under the Companies Act, 2013, vide Certificate of Incorporation dated 23.01.2018, is engaged in the business of building installation, including the activities performed at the site of construction, and it has been successfully executing projects, with a proven track record of its executed projects and towards adherence to contractual obligations, demonstrating its commitment to quality and client satisfaction. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 issued a Tender notification bearing No.NIT/BID/Ref.No.EEF:/06/ 24-25/SERC Conts/SLNP/TS/67ULV/ Disc/R&M/OTE-242501 dated 22.04.2024, for dismantling, installation, commissioning for 40,194 numbers of LED streetlights and the repair and maintenance of 1,33,134 numbers of LED streetlights for a period of five years or till the project completion of respective Urban Local Body and other related works in sixty seven Urban Local Bodies project in the State of Telangana. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner Company submitted its bid on 14.05.2024, in strict compliance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the Tender Notification, and while the evaluation process of the tender was going on, the petitioner Company had received an e-mail from respondent No.1 on 16.08.2024, requesting to fill in the Bill of Material (BOM) Form and to submit the same by 05:00 PM on 17.08.2024. Thereafter, a reminder e-mail dated 17.08.2024 was received by the petitioner seeking to submit the said BOM Form. In response, the petitioner, initially vide e-mail dated 17.08.2024, informed that the concerned Executive Authority in the petitioner Company was unavailable, and thus, sought for extension of time for submitting the BOM Form till 20.08.2024. It was further submitted that the petitioner, vide e-mail dated 23.08.2024, had informed the respondent Corporation that it had chosen to withdraw from the tender process, considering its financial situation and budgets. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, after more than forty-five days, the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 was passed, indicating that the petitioner Company has been suspended from participating in the tendering process of the EESL Tenders for a period of one year.

4. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the petitioner had withdrawn from the Tender process even before it was declared as L1 bidder and the respondents also never informed the petitioner Company that it was declared as a successful bidder/L1 bidder, and they had also failed to appraise the petitioner Company about the opening of technical and financial bids, which was followed in another tender floated by the very same respondent. Further, the petitioner Company was not even issued with the Letter of Award of Tender, and the respondents, on no occasion, responded to the e-mail dated 23.08.2024 sent by the petitioner, by informing that it has been qualified as a successful/L1 bidder, so it cannot backout as per the terms and conditions of the tender notification. It was further submitted that the petitioner Company was issued with a Letter of Award dated 14.03.2024, which pertains to another tender floated by the respondent fo