IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 6540 OF 2026

01.05.2026 Between:

M/s Dilip Buildcon Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory ….. Petitioner And Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & others ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General representing Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

2. Petitioner claims to be a leading infrastructure development company in India with over two decades of experience in execution of Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) projects, etcetera. It is stated, Respondent No.2 issued Tender Notice dated 03.06.2025 for execution of EPC contract for construction of new bi-directional twin tunnels between Usarani and Jamod stations in connection with the Akola-Khandwa Gauge Conversion Project of South Central Railway, valued at approximately Rs.1124.48 Crores, involving twin tunnels of about 6.70 kilometers each along with associated infrastructure, funded from the public exchequer and published on the Indian Railways E-Procurement System (IREPS).

2.1. It is stated, tender followed a two-envelope system comprising Techno-Commercial Bid and Financial Bid, and only responsive Techno-Commercial Bids would qualify for opening of Financial Bids. Petitioner is stated to have submitted Techno- Commercial Bid strictly in accordance with the RFP, fulfilling all eligibility criteria including technical experience, financial thresholds, net worth, personnel, and machinery requirements. However, they received a system-generated e mail dated 20.02.2026 stating that its bid was “not responsive and not qualified for opening financial bid,” which, according to petitioner, was non-speaking and did not disclose any reasons or violated clause.

2.2. Petitioner therefore, is stated to have submitted representation dated 21.02.2026 seeking reasons and reconsideration, contending that it had complied with all requirements. Respondent No.2, by communication dated 24.02.2026, for the first time, disclosed that rejection was based on Clauses 7(a) and 7(b) of Annexure-I, which required certification that no investigation by any regulatory authority or investigating agency was pending against the bidder, its members, sister concerns, or key personnel, and alleged that Petitioner’s disclosure of CBI FIR No. RC 2182021A0007 dated 30.12.2021 vitiated certification and rendered it a “Non-

Performing Entity.”

2.3. The said reasoning, petitioner states, is factually- incorrect and legally-unsustainable, as investigation in the said CBI FIR was completed; charge-sheet was filed vide CC No.25 of 2022, and the matter is pending trial before the Court of Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI), Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, posted to 24.03.3036 for prosecution evidence, therefore, no investigation was pending as on the date of bid submission. It is stated, Clause 7(a), relating to investigation by a regulatory authority, is inapplicable as no regulatory authority has initiated any investigation, proceedings, inquiry, or action against the Petitioner. Respondents have erroneously equated criminal trial with pending investigation and misapplied Clause 7(b), as investigation concluded upon filing of charge-sheet and cognizance by the competent court, and thereafter, the matter is in the stage of trial, which is legally distinct from investigation.

2.4. It is stated, Clause 7(b) must be strictly construed, as it refers only to “pending investigation” and not to pendency of criminal proceedings, trial, or charge sheet, and therefore cannot be expanded by administrative interpretation to include stages beyond investigation. Petitioner drawing attention to the d