IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 8581 OF 2026

21.04.2026 Between:

M/s SKV Hitech Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director ….. Petitioner And Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., (A Govt. of India Enterprise), Rep. by the Chief Project Manager, & another ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in the field of development of infrastructure projects for Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities for more than two decades. It was awarded the work pertaining to construction of roadbed, bridges and allied works in connection with doubling of railway track between Navipet Station (Excl) and Indalvai Station (Incl) of Hyderabad Division of South Central Railway, pursuant to Letter of Acceptance dated 21.04.2025 for a total contractual value of Rs.57,84,69,036/-, with a stipulated completion period of nine calendar months, i.e., on or before 20.01.2026.

1.1. Petitioner contends that Respondents failed to discharge their fundamental contractual obligations by not furnishing proper L-section drawings indicating the levels of formation and by not providing approved General Arrangement Drawings (GADs) for bridges, which are essential prerequisites for execution of the work, thereby seriously impeding the progress of the project. As against 41 Minor Bridges and 3 Major Bridges forming part of the scope of work, Respondents furnished GADs only for 17 Minor Bridges and one Major Bridge No.480 on 31.07.2025 and for 5 Minor Bridges on 04.09.2025, that too such drawings were not approved drawings but only tentative or indicative drawings, rendering it impossible for the Petitioner to proceed with construction.

1.2. Even as on the date of termination, Respondents had not furnished GADs for 14 Minor Bridges and two Major Bridges and had also not furnished approved designs and drawings for 42 Minor Bridges and 3 Major Bridges, thereby demonstrating failure on the part of Respondents to perform their contractual obligations. The allegations of slow progress made by Respondents through letters dated 13.10.2025 and

01.12.2025 are unfounded, arbitrary and contrary to actual site conditions, inasmuch as such allegations were made despite the Respondents not furnishing necessary inputs required for execution of the work. The progress of work was severely affected due to non-availability of approved drawings, lack of proper work fronts and approaches to bridge locations, and non-removal of underground utilities by the concerned departments, which prevented the Petitioner from carrying out the work effectively.

1.3. There was indecision on the part of Respondents regarding the composition and approval of blanketing material, and final approval for blanketing was granted only on 23.02.2026, thereby delaying the execution of work. The work site consisted of black cotton soil which becomes extremely slushy even with minimal rainfall, and during the relevant period the area experienced unusually heavy and unprecedented rainfall, making it practically impossible to carry out earthwork or move heavy machinery, thereby causing unavoidable delay in execution of work. It is stated, the delay in execution was also attributable to external factors such as farmers not permitting closure of water in paddy fields along the alignment, thereby affecting the work fronts and contributing to delay.

1.4. Despite executing the work to the extent possible under the prevailing circumstances, Respondents failed to release full payment for the work done and paid only partial amounts, thereby adversely affecting the financial capability of the Petitioner to continue the work. Petitioner, in response to 48 hours Notice dated 02.03.2026, submitted its reply dated 03.03.2026 explaining the sequence of events and requested extension of time up to 31.05.2026 to complete the work, subject to Respondents discharging the