HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR W.A.No.33 OF 2026 DATE: 08.01.2026 Between M/s. SRR Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner/Director ... Appellant And M/s. Vijendra Info Soft Private Limited and four others.

...Respondents Mr. M. Rathan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Mr. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Thaduri Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

Mr. T. Venkat Raj Goud, the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Mr. P. Shravan Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for the respondent No.5.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.26932 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1 herein against the proceedings dated 04.09.2025 issued by the District Collector/Chairman, District Level Outsourcing Committee, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (respondent No.3 herein), cancelling the Outsourcing Contract of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and allotting the same to the appellant.

2. By the impugned order dated 19.12.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the proceedings dated 04.09.2025 and directed the respondents/State Authorities to permit the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to continue to provide the outsourcing services in terms of the Agreement dated 06.07.2025, in accordance with law.

3. The sole contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner failed to show any empanelment which would entitle the writ petitioner to provide services to the ESI Dispensaries.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner entered into an Agreement with the Joint Director (Medical), Insurance Medical Services Department, Government of Telangana, Musheerabad, Hyderabad (the respondent No.5 herein), on 06.07.2025, for rendering outsourcing services with respect to paramedical, technical and non-technical staff. Counsel further submits that the said Agreement was in subsistence as on the date of the impugned order and will continue to subsist till 31.03.2026. Counsel also places the document dated 04.09.2025, impugned in the Writ Petition, which shows the arbitrary nature of discontinuation of the Agreement entered into between the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 and the subsequent allotment of the same contract to the appellant. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the relevant documents, it is evident that the proceedings of the respondent No.3/District Collector/ Chairman, District Level Outsourcing Committee, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, dated 04.09.2025 reflect that the Outsourcing Agency was re-allotted to the appellant merely on the basis of a representation made by the appellant to the respondent No.3/District Collector and the telephonic instructions of the District Collector on 03.09.2025. This is clearly apparent from the reference column of the proceedings dated 04.09.2025.

6. Admittedly, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken by the respondent No.3/District Collector, whereby the contract for outsourcing services was allotted to the appellant, notably during the subsistence of the Agreement dated 06.07.2025.

7. As stated above, the said Agreement between the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 was to continue till 31.03.2026. Hence, it was essential for the State respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner before allotting the contract for outsourcing of the same services to the appellant.

8. The learned Single Judge rightly noticed this point and, in fact, also answe