A Single Judge of the High Court is bound by the judicial precedent set by the Division Bench and cannot entertain a writ petition or issue directions, such as a roving enquiry, that effectively nullify a conclusive ruling of the Division Bench regarding the same public procurement tender.

JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin)

2. The present Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent , assailing the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.40073 of 2025. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the underlying writ petition, directed the respondent No.5 to conduct a detailed enquiry into the tender process relating to the supply of bunker beds to Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs) and further ordered that the interim order dated 23.01.2026 shall continue to remain in force pending such enquiry. The appellants, being the successful bidders (L1 and L2) as well as the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), were aggrieved by the said order, as it effectively nullifies the earlier binding judgment of this Court W.A.No.411 of 2026 dated 13.04.2026 arising out of W.P.No.38140 of 2025 dated 22.01.2026. The appellants claim to be also aggrieved by the continuation of the restraint on the implementation of a public welfare project.

Factual Matrix

3. The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Telangana, Hyderabad, issued a tender notice vide Notice No.(NIT) 06/SS/2024-25 dated 26.04.2025, for the Supply, Commissioning and Installation of 45,360 Bunker Beds with mattresses and pillows to KGBVs across the State of Telangana. The appellants herein were the successful bidders, ‘L1 and L2’ and the OEMs.

4. A challenge to the tender process, specifically to the supplementary agreements dated 29.11.2025 was initially filed by the Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association and others in W.P.No.38140 of 2025. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 22.01.2026, holding inter alia that the delay was not attributable to the bidders, that time was not the essence of the contract given the presence of extension and liquidated damages clauses in the tender document and that the petitioners, as non-participants in the tender process lacked the locus standi to challenge the tender. The learned Single Judge did not find any arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality or favoritism in the tender process.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said W.P.No.38140 of 2025, the petitioners therein filed W.A.No.411 of 2026. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Appeal vide order dated 13.04.2026. The Division Bench categorically held at Para No.12 as under:

12. This action of the authorities concerned cannot be found fault with as those were all strictly in terms of the contractual agreement at the first instance and secondly it was also within the domain of the authorities concerned. There also does not appear to be any substantial material available so as to establish the mala fides on the part of the authorities concerned or any favoritism as alleged to have been shown by respondent No.2 to respondent Nos.6 and 7.

6. Thereafter, respondent No.1 herein (writ petitioner), an Ex-MLA of Narsampet, Warangal District and Ex-Chairman, Civil Supplies Corporation, Telangana, who had not participated in the tender process, filed the underlying W.P.No.40073 of 2026 with the prayer to declare the inaction of the Central and State vigilance Commissions on his representation dated 18.12.2025 as illegal and sought a direction to the Vigilance Commission for registration of complaint. It is significant to note that the writ petition did not challenge the tender process, the award of contracts or the supplementary agreements.

7. Despite the limited prayer