I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.38140 OF 2025 DATE: 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 Betw een:

Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association and Others … Petitioners And State of Telangana & Others … Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri M.Pranav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on record and Sri T.Rajinikant Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. B.Kavita Yadav, learned standing appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri B.Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.6 to 8 on record.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:-

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the letter dated 01.12.2025 along with entering the agreements dated 29.11.2025 with Respondent No.6 (Agreement No.8/2025-6) and Respondent No 7 Agreement No 7/202526 in connection with the Tender/ Bid Document bearing Bid Notice No.(NIT) 06/SS/ 2024-25 dated 26.04.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 for Supply Commissioning and Installation of Bunker Beds in KGBVs in Telangana State as being illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same…”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

It is the case of the petitioners that the writ petitioners, Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Small Manufacturers Association and others, have filed the present writ petition challenging the actions of the respondents with respect to the supply of 45,360 bunker beds along with mattresses and pillows. The original tender conditions, as per clause 5 of the tender documents, required the supply to be completed within 120 days from the initial agreement dated 29.05.2025. No supplies were made by Respondents No. 6 and 7 within this period, and instead of retendering after expiry of the

120-day term, a supplementary agreement dated 29.11.2025 was executed, granting an additional 120 days, which contravened the original tender conditions and deprived petitioners of an opportunity to participate.

It is further the case of the petitioners that the reasons cited by the respondents for the delay, include pending color codes for the beds, government enquiries regarding pricing, and verification of space availability in KGBVS, which are unjustified. The tender conditions did not require post-bid determination of color codes. The alleged pricing enquiry was based on irrelevant comparisons, and the space verification should have been completed prior to tendering. No official orders or communications extended the time under the first agreement, making the second agreement arbitrary and beyond the tender terms.

It is further the case of the petitioners that, there was favoritism towards Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, noting that Respondent No. 8 participated actively in the pre-bid meeting, and its credentials were relied upon by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to qualify for the tender, thereby enabling multiple participation through the same entity. This arrangement contravenes clause 13(f) of the tender conditions and effectively ensures preferential treatment for the respondents, undermining fair competition. Additionally, there were irregularities in pricing. Purchase orders dated 04.12.2025 and 05.12.2025 reflected exorbitant rates, including transportation. Post-agreement negotiations and supplemental agreements, including one dated 06.12.2025, were conducted without calling for fresh tenders, contrary to the Central Vigilance Commission guidelines and Ge