132527

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH

.',-T.,iIO

THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE

MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRITPETITION NO:s504oF 2026

Between:

AND

M/s. Chiranth Enterprises, Represented by it! ProPrietor

S Adi Narayana

R/o. H.No.3-5 -10t4t1311, i;"f"*''-G;i irt'rbn' cross Road' Lakshmi

Cotony, NaraYanaguda,

HYderabad

...PETITIONER

1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary to

Government, Finance

'';;p;;;";i'

Dt' d R Ambedkar Telangana

Secretariat, HYderabad'

2. Director of Medical Education' Sultan Bazar' Koti' Hyderabad'

3.GovernmentGeneralHospital,-RepresentedbyitsSuperintendent,-

Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District'

4.GovernmentGeneralHospital'RepresentedbyitsSuperintendent,

Wanaparthy, WanaParthY District

5. MGM Hospital, Represented by its Superintendent' Warangal' Warangal

District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybepleased

to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the particular the

1st Respondent Secretary of Finance forthwith release and pay the amounts in

respect of token Nos. 1) 2449703156 & dl'27 01 '2024

for an amount of

El,Gl;*aEl'z

r!6!klFlF

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No.55O4oF 2026

DATED : 02.03.2O26

Between:

M/s. Chiranth Enterprises,

Rep., by its Proprietor S. Adi Narayana,

R/o. H.No,3-5 -tO/4/B/ 1,\, 1'L Floor,

Near YMCA Cross Road, Lakshmi Colony,

Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

.. . Petitioner

AND

The State ofTelangana,

Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government,

Finance Depa rtment,

Dr. B.R, Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat,

Hydera bad.

Director of Medica I Education,

Su ltan Ba za r,

Koti, Hyderabad.

Govern ment General Hospital,

Rep., by its S u perintendent,

Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District.

Govern ment General Hospita l,

Rep., by its Superintendent,

Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District

1

2

3

4

5 14GM Hospital,

Rep., by its Superintendent,

Waranga\,

Warangal District

...Respondents

z

SN. J

oRER ::

Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner; learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Finance and Planning Department appearing

on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for

respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2The oetitoner aDDroached the Court seekinq Dravert

as under:

"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the

particular the 1st respondent Secretary of Finance forthwith

release and pay the amounts in respect of toke Nos.1)

2449703756 & dated 27.0L.2024 for an amount of

Rs.9,69,762/-; 2) 2449103168 & dated 27.O!.2O24 for an

amount of Rs.5,O8,737/-; 3) 2449703775 & dated

27.07.2024 for an amount of Rs.14,60,757/-;4) 2449703185

& dated 27.07.2024 for an amount of Rs.1,78,080/-; 5)

2449703750 & dated 21 .OL.2024 for an amount of

Rs.1,13,108/-; 6) 2449t13r62 & dated 27.01.2024 for an

amount of Rs.8,68,052/-; 7) 2449703746 & dated

27.01.2024 for an amount of Rs.10,34,907/-; 8) 2449703176

& dated 27.O1.2O24 for an amount of Rs.7,90,5O6/-; 9)

2449702730 & dated 27.01.2024 for an amount of

Rs.5,60,500/-; 10) 2449702754 & dated 27.07.2024 for an

amount of Rs.5,68,465/-; 11) 2449702748 & dated

27.O1.2024 for an amount of Rs.4,58,6371-; t2) 24497027a3

& dated 27.07.2024 for an amount of Rs.4,05,330/-; 13)

24497 027 38 & dated 27,07.2024 for an amount of

Rs.5,77,669/-; 74) 2449102788 & dated 27.o7.2O24 for an

amount of Rs.5,47,O48/-; 15) 2449702-172 & dated

27.O1.2O24 for an amount of Rs.r,O4,725/-; 16) 24a97O2759

& dated 27.O1.2O24 for an amount of Rs.1,66,320/-; 17)

24497 027 66 & dated 27.O7.2024 for an amount of

Rs.4,86,632/-; 18) 2460039935 & dated 28.03.2024 for an

!EFFI!I'FFq7

SN. J

amounr of Rs.31,13,152l-; 19) 2460039917 & dated

28.O3.2024 for an amount of Rs.48,40,280/-; 20)

2451708363 & dated 07.O2.2024 for an amount of

Rs.2,f4,4001-; 2l) 2456489007 & dated 06.03.2024 for an

amount of Rs.3,32,640/-; and 22) 2524363049 & dated

28.03.2025 for an amount of Rs.6,25,4O0/- for a total

amount of Rs.1,89,85,095/- is illegal, arbitrary, violative of

Articles 14, 19,21 & 300-4 of the Constitution of India and

consequent!y dcc are thc action oF the respondents in

withholdrng the said amount for a period of two (02) years is

llegal and arbitrary and to pass.,."

3. The case ofthe oetitaoner in briefas Der the

v mde in tha vlfiletheetitioer

suDDort of the oresent writ oetition is as under:

a) The petitioner supplied medical equipment on an

emergency basis to Government Hospitals against undisputed

token numbers, but payments remain pending even after two

yea rs

b) The supplies were made within the stipulated time, and the

bills were duly cleared by the Treasury Department and

forwarded to the Income Department.

c) The Government Hospitals processed the bills and

generated FTO/Token numbers dated 27.01.2024, 28.03.2024

and 28.03.2025 acknowledging that a total amount of

Rs.1,89,85,095/- is payable to the petitioner

4

SN. ]

d) The petitioner submitted a number of representations

personally seeking payments but however, the respondents

didn't take any action. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has

approached this court by filing the present Writ Petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:-

(A)The releva nt oortioof the iudoment

dated O8.O3.2O19 oassed in/s. Surva Constructions Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others reoorted in (2019) 16

SCC 794 oassed bv the Two Judoe Bench of the Aoex

Court in Civil ADDEANo.251O of 2O19 (Arisinoout of SLP

(C) No.295O5 of 2O14), is extracted hereunder:

"...it is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid

order dated 22.03.2074 that there is no dispute as to

the amount that has to be paid to the appellant.

Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the

doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ

Civil No.25126 of 2014, the lmpugned judgment

dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating

that disputed questions of fact arise and that the

amount due arises out of contract. We are afraid

the Hioh Court was whollv incorrect inasmuch

as there wasno disouted ouestionof fact. On

iha a.ttr +ha emuntnawa hla+^ iha

whol n ute

well sled that wherethe statebehaves

=

rhi+r: rilrrnrn

+ha rdtlmnierrlr.r.+ ilra

Hioh Court()Utdinterfere under Article 226 0f

the Constitution of India f 'ABL International

I f.l ,h A ri.rfharwF CreAtGuar

\

EN!!=!r

)

SN. J

ation of In he 20

scc ss3)1.

Thrs bcing the case and the work having been

completed long back in 2009, we direct the Uttar

Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment

within a period of four weeks from today. Given the

long period of de ay, interest at the rate of 6 per cent

per annum may also be awarded.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."

(B)The Aoex Court in the iudoment reoorted in

(2o238 SCC 240 in Madras Aluminium ComoanvLimited)

vs. Tamil Nadu Electricitv Board and Anothvide

udment

observedas under:

o.o7.202 rarah 9an4

"39. A Bench of two learned Judges of this

Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of

U.P.'1 observed that there exists "an obvious

difference" between contracts concerning prjvate

parties to those which have State as a party. The

pr,mary difference belng that the State while

exercising its powers and discharging its functions

"acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public

Aood

and n public interest". The said factor singularly is

sufficient to bring into any transaction the minimal

requrremcnts of public law, to which the State is a

party. The fact that a dispute falls into the

contractual realm does not relieve the State of its

obligation to comply with the requirements of Article

L4.

40. Further the Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi

case4 had observed that: (SCC p.237, para 24)

.-

6

SN. J

"24. fhe State cannot be attributed the split

personality of Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the

contractual fleld so as to impress on it all the

characteristics of the State at the threshold while

making a contract requiring it to fulfil the obligation

of Article 14 of the Constitution and thereafter

permitting it to cast oFf its garb of State to adorn the

new robe of a private body during the subsistence of

the contract enabling it to act arbitrarily subject only

to the contractual obllgations and remedies flowing

from it. It is really the nature of its personality as

State which is significant and must characterize all

its actions, in whatever field, and not the nature of

function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive

of the nature of scrutiny permitted for examining the

validity of its act. The requirement of Article 14

being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably,

there is nothing which militates against the concept

of requiring the State always to so act, even in

contractual matters. There is a basic difference

between the acts of the State which must invariably

be in public interest and those of a private individual,

engaged in similar activities, being primarily for

personal gain, which may or may not promote public

interest. Viewed in this matter, in which we find no

conceptual difficulty or anachronism, we find no

reason why the requirement of Article 14 should not

extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for

regulating the conduct of the State activity."

(c) va nto he

dated 3OO4.2O22 Dassed bthe Hioh Court Andhra

Pradesh in Katta ChinnaKotaiah vs. The State of Andhra

PradeshreDortedin MANU/APIO721t2022, as racted

hereunder:

EFll f rFT

1

S\. J

"The Apex court and this Court in catena

of deeisions hcld that when there is non-

oavment of the undisputed bills. the same is

vtoattveofArticlesL4and 16 af the

Constitution of India. The counsel for the

petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of

the Apex Court in Surya Constructions Vs. State of

Utter Pradesh and others, following the j,Jdgment in

ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee

Corporation of India Ltd. Cited supra. In view of the

Apex Court judgment, the contention of t.he Iearned

Govern mcnt Pleader that the writ petit ion is not

maintarnab e before this Court coulcl not be

countenanced. The bills of the petitioner dated

13.3,2019 are admitted by the respondents and

forwarded for payment after due measurements and

obtaining quality controi and the Vigilance report.

Hence, the authorities are estopped from stating that

the bills are submitted without executing the works.

On the mere ground of pendency of Vigilance report,

payment cannot be stopped. Accordinolv. there

shall be a direction to the respondents to pav

the bill amount of Rs,8.O8,828/- to the

Letltrsr err\/,!th in a perrod of six weeks from the

date oJ receipt of copv of this order."

(D)The relvaentDortion of the iudqment

dated 16.O3.2O2L oassed bv the Hiqh Court of Andhra

Dr h

in Mrtala Veer lzrlr Crhr=nrrttrt lia rrcThavn

State of Andhra Pradesh reDorted in 2O2LSCCOnline AP

141O, in oarticular oaraoraDh Nos.8 and 9, is extracted

hereu n d er:

"8. rhc provisions of the Act make it clear that

It ls a wclfare legislation meant to create

employment/cradicate unemployment ln rural areas

8

SN. J

and in the process to create durable assets for rural

India. Thus, it is clear that a public element is

involved in these works with State participation and

funding. The "States" presence is therefore all

pervasive in this scheme. The law on the

interpretation of welfare legislation is also very clear.

As held in number of cases includlng K.H.Nazar v.

Mathew K Jacob case by the Supreme Court of India

"Judges ought to be concerned with the colour,

content and the context of such statutes". Therefore,

in view of the settled law and keeping in mind the

purpose for which the legislation is enacted, this

Court has to hold that there is a public element

involved in this and that it is not a pure case of the

State entering into a commercial contract.

9. Apart from this when State or State

i nstru mentlities act in an arbitrarmanner or

faiItoa.t witin tthe Writ Courtdoshavch

(E)

tme

iurisdiction to entertain theatter. Even the

case law cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioner supports this to an extent. Besides thls

Court notices that there is no method/mode for

settlement of dtsputes provlded for. Section 23 of the

Act and Rule 14 of Schedule-I for example provide

for constant monitoring of the works/books to be

maintained etc. Despite this, there is no strict denial

of the exact quantum of work executed."

releva n ion o heud

2.O3.2O22 oassed bv the Hioh Court ofAndhra

n

dated

Pradesin W.P.No.25lL ol 2022, ioarticular oaraoraoh

Nos.23and 24, is extracted hereu nder:

'23) Te Hioh Courtof Andhra Pra

.I. Devena Reddv vakativa Univedr

nhr n2O5 LD

desh in

tv and

h

with hold inooftheaount oavableto the

IFTIFFT

9

SN. ]

petitioner for the contract works, constitutes

It atF ar.hitrrr ont rt

+h6

n

nents trd n

Dav 2015 the amountdue to the otitioner

alonq with interest @ 12olo oer annum.

24) The Hioh Court of Andhra Praesh in

s.srlntvasvsState ofAndhra Pradeshand

others reoortedin 2O21 (5) 7, held that

the Detitioner is entitlefor thetnteres@ l2o/o

frm fexr nm h

the date of submission of bill to tillthe date of

pav me nt. "

(F)The rlevant Dortioof the idoment

dated 21.04.2025 Dassed bvhis Court in W.P.No.1t744 ot

2O25 in particular oaraqraph No.5, is extractedhereunder:

5. Havino reoard to the submissions of both

rnecou crt

aoorooriateto disoose of the WritPetition bv

.lirectinn th n.lent a

r rthnritiac +arI

the admitted bill amount of Rs.1,16.51.734.OO1

due to the petitioner, as expeditiouslv as

lere lnae

weeks from the date of receiot of a coDv of the

order. No costs. "

(G)The relevantDortion of the order of this Court

dated O3.1O.2O23Dassed under similar circumstances in

wP.No.12655 of 2023 in Darticular DaraoraDh Nos,12 and

13, is extracted hereunder:

'12. 1n the light of the pleadings and

arguments referred to above, it is clear that there is

no dispute with regard to amounts payable under Bill

-

10

Nos.34,35 and 36. It has beeheld bv the

Hon'beSureme Court from timeto time that

writ iurisdiction Eer se cannot be denied merelv

because the disoute ase out of a commercial

contract asheld in Surva Constructions'case

( Su ora 1).ABL International Liited's case

(Suora 2) and Centurv Soinnino and

Manufacturino Comoanv Limited's case (Suora

3). InsUra Constructions' case (Suora 1), the

Hon'ble Suoreme Couqranted relief to the

petitioner therein takino note of the fact that

bills oavable to the Detitioner were undisouted.

ancasetheetiion nr

ha*ar frr

oitnatheills ofh

h fo rialili.rrr al. -?6

not onlv admitted but also certified. As observed

above, in the present case there is no dispute as

such between the parties. The only issue is with

regard to release of payment under Bill Nos.34, 35

and 36 by the respondents - State. No explanation is

forthcoming from the respondents as to why the

amounts covered by Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 cannot

be released. According to the respondents, Bill

Nos.34, 35 and 36 are pending for want of budgetary

clearance. On the face of it, action of the

respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust

and the same cannot be countenanced.

13. The contention of the learned

Additional Advocate General that the

oetitioners have to aDroach civil Court even

for pavment of admitted bills runs contrarv to

the settled leoal proposition. This Court would

also look into the public interest involved. The

project, as informed by the learned counsel on either

side, is an ongoing project and the bills worth of

hundreds of crores are kept pending for no reason

and there is every possibility of non-release of

payment impacting the ongoing project and the

same would not be in public interest. Even for this

reason, this Court holds that the petitioner has made

out a case warranting interference in writ

jurisdiction. Further, as there is inordinate delay in

SN. .I

rt-

11

SN. J

release of payments covered by the subject bills by

the respondents to the petitioner without any

justification, in the opinion of this Court, the

respondents are liable to pay penal interest.

However, as against the claim of 18o/o per annum

sought by lhe petitioner, this Court holds that the

respondents are liable to pay penal interest at 9%o

per annum. "

(H) The iudqment of theAoex Court in Hari Krishna

Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported

in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 and in Darticular Dara

1on1O1 held as fo

"100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the

power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of

mandamus,but are dutv-bound Lo exereise sueh

vrnment or aublic authori

has failed to exercise or has wronolv exercised

discretion conferred uDont bv a statute, or a rule, or

a policv decision of the Government oL has exercised

such discretion malafide. or on irrelevant

consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must rssue a writ of

mandamus and give directions to compel performance in

an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion

conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

DISCUSSONAND CONCLUSION :-

5. Learned cou

I

nsel aODearinq on behalf of the

Detitioner mainlv Duts-forth the followino submissions :-

2

SN.,]

a) Even though the bills were certified and the above FTOs

were issued and approved, the respondents have not released

the payment. The petitioner also submitted a number of

representations requesting the respondents to release the

admitted amount; however, no action has been taken so far,

resulting in an inordinate and unexplained delay in payment.

b) The petitioner herein stands on a similar footing and is

entitled for grant of similar relief as extended under similar

circumstances to the petitioner in W.P.No.12655 of 2023 vide

judgment of this Court dated 03.10.2023, to the petitioner in

W.P.No.10284 of 2025 vide judgment of this Court

daled 24.04.2025 and to the petitioner in W.P.No.77744 of 2025

dated 21.04.2025.

Based on theaforesaid submissions, learned counsel

aooearino on behalf of theDetitionercontends that the

nrlenitled forrt fed for b

the oetitioner in the oresent writ oetition.

6Learned Assistant GovernrrentPleader for Finance

and PlanninqDeDartment, aooearinqon behalf of

resoondent N.1 does not dispute the saidsubmissions

-ttrr

li

SN. J

rrr r.la hv fhaarned counsel a

Itr.te

,trt.r

^ri

hahrlf af tha

etitioner bt f nds that the Tken Nu

issued in favor of the Detitioner were for the veat 2024-

2025. It is as borne out from the record that admittedlv,

a period of more than 2 years had elaosed since token

rh en issued in resect of suofm

h vernment Hositals on an emeren

basis bv theDetitioner

7. This Court on perusal of the record further opines that

there is no dispute with regard to either the execution of the

work of supply of medical equlpment on an emergency basis to

the Government Hospital or the quantum of the amount payable

to the petitioner and the said fact is even admitted by the

learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the

respondents. This Court opines that once the competent

authorities have verified the work executed by the petitioner

pertaining to the medical equipment supplied by the petitioner

and issued the above Token/FTO numbers, the liability of the

respondents to release the admitted amount stands clearly

established. However, despite the issuance and approval of the

aforesaid FTOs, the respondents have failed to release the

payment for a consrderablc period without assigning any valid

14

SN. J

reason. In the considered opinion of this Court, withholding the

admitted and certified bill amounts for an indefinite period,

despite supply of the equipment to the Government Hospitals

and acknowledgment of liability by the respondents herein is

arbitrary and unjustified. Administrative or financial constraints

cannot be accepted as a valid ground to deny payment of

amounts legitimately due the petitioner who has executed the

work for the Government. Therefore, the respondents are bound

to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the

admitted, undisputed amounts done payments in respect of the

medical equipment supplied by the petitioner, in accordance to

law as per petitioner's legal entitlement within a reasonable

period.

8. This Court opines that when State or Instrumentalities of

State Act in an arbitrary manner or fail to act within tlme the

Writ Court has the bounden duty to pass appropriate order, in

the interest of justice as held in the various judgments of Apex

Court and various other Courts referred to and extracted above.

9This Court opines that in theDresent case admittedlv

as borne on record the resoondents herein failed to act

fairlv, iustlv reasonablv, anfurther failed totake anv

lEtf7

l5

SN, J

decision onDetitioner's request for release of the

ndis rtifieaments

the medicaleouioment supplied by petitionerto the

resoo nd entsherein within a reasonabletime and dulv

aoolvinq the principle laiddown in the iudqments of the

ADex Court reoorted in 2O19(16) SCC 794 and 2023(8)

SCC 24 (referred to and extracted above) to the facts of

heresent cae Ih hhea nth

resDondent Government autorities is unfair, uniust and

unreasonable towards the petitioner herein,

10. Takino into cnside ration: -

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case,

(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance

and Planning Department appearing on behalf of

respondent No,1,

(c) The observations in the judgments referred to

and extracted above and again enlisted below:

(i) (2019) 16 SCC 794,

(ii) (2023) 8 SCC 24O,

(iii) MANU/AP / 0721 / 2022,

l6

SN. J

(iv) 2021 SCCOnline AP 1410,

(v) The judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.2511 of

2022,

(vi) The judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.11744 of 2O25,

(vii) The order dated O3.1O.2O23 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.12655 ol 2023,

(viii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969

(d) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at

paragraph Nos.s to 9 of this order,

he Writ Peitint Ilr

resDondents to verifv and consider the request and

f theetitioner for the release of th

undisuted amont lnh knn

issued to the petitioner pertaininq to the supplv of

medical eouioment to Government hospitals on an

emeroencv basis, in respect of the Token Nos. 1)

24497O9L56 & dated 27.OL.2O24 for an amount of

Rs.9,69,762/-i 2) 2449703168 & dated 27.OL.2O24 for an

amount of Rs.5,O8,737 l-; 3) 2449703175 & dated

7.OL224 for an amount of Rs.14605

24497O3LA5 & dated 27.01.2024 for an amount of

Rs.1,78,O8O / -, s) 2449703150 & dated 27.01.2024 lor an

a f Rs.113108 703L62

27.OL.2O24 for an amnt of Rs.8.68.O52t-| 7)

T] n

=17

t1

SN. J

2449703146 &dated27.Ot.2O24 foran amont of

o.34O1l-: 8) 2449703LL6 &dated 27.O1.2024 forRs1 9

an amountof Rs,7,9O.5O6/-; 9)2449702730 dated

7L.202 n amo f Rs.s6so0fr

24497027s4& dated 27.OL.2O24 for an amount of

Rs.5,68,465/-: 11) 2449702748 & dated 27.01.2024 lor

an amount ofRs.4.58.5371-t L2) 2449702743 & dated

27.OL.2024for an amount of Rs.4,O5,33OI-1 13)

2449702734& dated 27.01.2024 for an amount of

Rs.S,77,669/-:t4) 2449702788 & dated7.O1.2O24 for

mnof Rs.s47oI 124472772 & date

27.OL.2O24 for an amount of Rs.t.O4,725l -l 16)

2449702759& dated 27.OL.2O24 for an amount of

Rs.1,66,32O/-t L7) 2449702766 & dated 27.01.2024 tor

an amount of Rs.4,86,632./1a)2460039935 & dated

22trnmn R.3113L52

o9L7 2 224 rnmont

Rs.48.40.28O / -t 2O) 245t7OB363& dated O7O2.2O24 tor

an amount of Rs.2,74,4OO/2t)24564A9007& dated

i

t

224ffnmnfR 2 nd 22

2524363o49 & dated 28.03.2025 for an amount of

Rs.6,25,400 /- for a total amount of Rs.1,89,85,0951-

-

l8

SN. J

wth to owr fmhd t

f of thrdrul tntnondranh

oservtionsofthAexCurtandotherCourtsinthe

ar

errdonerct ov d

ta d etnnoelaf id

ot tnth of ulent

v nhtal nemrn

orr ser loer'al en

e

to

1

2

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if

Petition, shall stand closed.

any, pending in this Writ

//TRUE COPYII

SD/-T. SRINIVASA REDDY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

€

SECTION OFFICER

Government General Hospital, Mahabubabad,

The Principal Secretarv to Government, Finance Department, State

Telangana, Dr. B. R. Am-bedkarTelang.n, S""r"l"nlt, nyderabao.

Director of Medical Education, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad.

of

To,

DAN

3. The Superintendent,

Mahabubabad District.

4

I[:r:ir"r,.,".dent,

Government cenerat Hospitat, Wanaparthy, Wanaparrhy

5, The Superintendent, MGM Hospital, Warangal, Warangat District.

6. One CC to SRl. p

V RAMANA, Advocate

tOpUCI

7. Trro CCs to Gp FOR FIryA.rygE_& PLANN|NG

,High Court for the State of

Telangana At Hyderabad. tOUTi

- 'lrri!rrrv rr rrv'r

8. Two CCs to Gp FOR MEDTCAL & HEALTH DEPARTMENT

,High Court for

the State of Tetangana nt nyOeraOiO. fdUil--'

"'

9. Two CD Copies

BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 02103t2026

ORDER

WP.No.5504 ot 2026

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

CC TODAY

Ut ST4r

e

)1a

)

o

o

1 2 JUN 2i]26

(.

*

.cr: s

6

tb

t,

b

\