IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.6132 of 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 26.02.2026 Between:

Sri Rama Wadders Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited Rep. by its President Gunja Papaiah, S/o. Late Guruvaiah ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others ...Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the notices bearing Nos.C1/909/VER/MCK/2025 & C1/909-2/VER/MCK/2025, dated 12.11.2025 and 29.12.2025 respectively issued by respondent No.4 as being arbitrary, illegal, malafide, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and infringes the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles

14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts of the case as stated in brief are that the petitioner is a registered L-1 contractor executing the civil works including CC roads for various Government and Municipal authorities. It is further submitted that in the year 2017, an administrative sanction was granted for laying various CC roads in Kamareddy Municipality with an estimated cost of Rs.300.00 lakhs. The petitioner filed tender at Serial No.17 for laying the CC road for an amount of Rs.17,58,683.40/-. The respondent No.4 – The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kamareddy approved the tender on 25.01.2018 and issued work order in favor of the petitioner vide Letter No.E1/Plan 14/2016-17, dated 29.01.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner executed the work under the supervision of Municipal Engineering Wing and that the measurements were duly recorded in Measurement Book (MB) No.178/2018-19 and the third party has submitted the site observation report and after completion of all procedures, payments were released. The Final Security Deposit (FSD) retained from the petitioner was released on 11.09.2020, which would establish that the work was completed to the satisfaction of the department and that there were no pending defects and no quality issues were recorded and the defect liability period stood concluded by accepting the execution work. 3. The respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice dated 12.11.2025 alleging that Vigilance and Enforcement Department conducted an enquiry and pointed out certain irregularities, excess payments and execution of substandard works and accordingly recommended recovery of Rs.16,89,888/- and further directed to pay / refund the amount and in case of non- payment, revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated and that apart, the petitioner’s name will be block-listed. In response to the notice dated 12.11.2025, the petitioner replied respondents 2 to 4 seeking to drop all the proceedings against them. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued final notice dated 29.12.2025 stating that the respondent No.4 issued the notice basing on the recommendations of respondent No.3, as such, dropping the proceedings is not in their jurisdiction and as such once again directed to pay / refund the amount.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned notices are missing the information in regard to what were the irregularities and what was the substandard work and what was the excess payment and on what basis they concluded the same. It is further submitted that the impugned notices were issued without furnishing vigilance report and without providing inspection details and without even granting any personal hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the photographs filed in the writ petition stating that work has been completed, and further draws attention of this Court to notices dated 12.11.2025 and 29.12.2025 issued by respondent No.4 and would further submit that the notice dated 12.11.2025 states that the respondent No.4 issued the said notice based on the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department on the Kam