1

APHC010143272026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3332]

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NOs: 7552 and 13218 of 2026

Between:

M/s., Precision Infratech Private Limited., ...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. UNNAM AKHIL CHOWDARY

2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

RESERVED ON: 05.05.2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 08.05.2026

UPLOADED ON: 08.05.2026

The Court made the following common order:

The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the G.O.Rt.No.339 dated

30.06.2025, the Superintending Engineer (3

rd

respondent) issued a Tender

Document E-Procurement Notice Inviting Tender NIT No.19/2025-26, dated

09.01.2026 inviting bids for execution of "Repairs, Servicing and replacement

2

of Mechanical and Electrical Components on four arms and embankments of

Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage", and the eligibility criteria relates to experience in

executing similar works, minimum financial turnover and Technical capacity.

2. In the said tender, it was mentioned that the tender schedule download

closing date as 27-01-2026 at 4.30 pm, Bid Submission closing date as 27-01-

2026 at 4.30 pm; Technical Bid Opening Date as 27-01-2026 at 4.31 PM and

Price Bid Opening date as 29-01-2026 at 11 am. Later, for the reasons best

known to the Respondents 1 to 3, the tender was made invisible in the portal

before the Bid Submission ending date, as such, the petitioner addressed an

email on 27-01-2026 at 12-45 PM to the notified email ID informing the

difficulty and requesting an extension of the bid submission date. Thereafter,

the same tender document was again uploaded on 27.01.2026, changing the

tender schedule download closing date to 10-02-2026 at 2.00 pm; Bid

Submission closing date to 10-02-2026 at 4.00 pm; Technical Bid Opening

Date to 10-02-2026 at 4.30 PM; and Price Bid Opening Date to 12-02-2026 at

11 am.

3. The petitioner along with its JV Partner M/s. Swapna Projects Private

Limited, being fully qualified as per the original tender conditions, submitted its

bid within the stipulated time i.e., on 04-02-2026.

4. While so, the Superintending Engineer-3

rd

respondent, issued

Corrigendum-1 on 04-02-2026 notifying the details of designated stacking

yard for stacking of dismantled components and payment details ;

Corrigendum-2 on 09-02-2026 again extending the timelines prescribing the

3

tender schedule download closing date as 20-02-2026 at 11.00 AM; Bid

Submission closing date as 20-02-2026 at 4.00 pm; Technical Bid (PQ Stage)

Opening Date as 20-02-2026 at 4.30 PM and Price Bid (Commercial Stage)

Opening date as 23-02-2026 at 11 am; Corrigendum-3 on 14-02-2026,

introducing new eligibility conditions, namely requirement of workshop within

500 km from the project site and local Class-I contractor (Electrical)

registration in the State of Andhra Pradesh during the tender process.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that, there is no issue with regard to

Corrigendum-1 & 2 but the Corrigendum-3 was issued with new eligibility

conditions on 14.02.2026, after the petitioner submitted its bid on 04-02-2026.

The petitioner sent an email to the designated email-ID on 16-02-2026 raising

objection to the new eligibility conditions and requested for review. Despite

the same, the technical bids were opened on 20-02-2026 wherein only the 5

th

respondent was said to have qualified in view of the new conditions under

Corrigendum-3 and the price bid was confirmed in favour of the 5

th

respondent. It is the further case that, the said issue was discussed in the

meeting held on 09-03-2026 before the State Level Technical committee and

the contract agreement is yet to be entered with the 5

th

respondent.

6. Challenging the new conditions prescribed in the Corrigendum-3 dated

14.02.2026, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7552 of 2026.

7. In the said writ petition, the 3

rd

respondent filed counter affidavit and

vacate stay petition and also filed a memo dated 01.05.2026 communicating

4

the minutes of State Level Technical Committee dated 09.03.2026 which

contains the reasons for rejecting the petitioner‟s technical bid. On noticing

the said minutes, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13218 of 2026 questioning the

same.

8. Inasmuch as both the writ petitions are connected and the parties are

one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of under this

common order.

9. Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

Somaraju Yelisetti, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, Sri Unnam

Muralidhar, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Unnam Akhil Chowdary,

learned counsel for the 5

th

respondent.

10 (a). Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been

stated in the affidavit contended that, by issuing Corrigendum-3 dated

14.02.2026, the respondent authorities have inserted entirely new eligibility

conditions which are tailor made, completely altering the eligibility criteria,

after the commencement of the tender process, which is impermissible under

law. He further submitted that, the prescription of new condition of having

work shop within 500 km from the work site would render the clause

impractical since 500 km from the work site would cross the State of A.P., and

the other condition of having A.P. Electrical Class-I registration would also

become impractical since it would be impossible for the bidders, who does not

5

possess, to obtain the same within 5 days from the issuance of the said

Corrigendum-3.

(b) He further submitted that, the subject tender relates to Fabrication work,

for which, the bidder is required to be registered as a Special Class contractor

(Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel) with the Government of Andhra

Pradesh (1st Respondent) which was prescribed in the original tender

document and the petitioner already possess the same. However, the 3

rd

respondent has issued Corrigendum-3 with new prescriptions of having a local

registration as Class-l contractor (Electrical) only to favour the Respondent

No.5 who alone has the said local registration as Class-l contractor (Electrical)

and the workshop within 500 km and thus disqualified the petitioner and

declared the 5

th

respondent as successful bidder. He further submitted that,

the 3

rd

respondent in the counter, on one hand stated that there are no

bidders as such the timeline was extended twice and to the contrary, issued

Corrigendum-3, to eliminate bidders by prescribing new conditions. If the

Corrigendum-3 is not issued there is a possibility of more bidder participation

and many of the bidders might have turned back in view of Corrigendum-3.

Thus the entire decision making process as well as the process of conducting

the tender is wholly illegal and arbitrary and made only to facilitate the 5

th

respondent. He further submitted that, the Respondents 1 to 3, being the

State authorities, are bound to act in conformity with the equality principle in

as much as the State instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily in awarding

6

contracts and the impugned Corrigendum-3 is in clear violation of the equality

principle.

(c) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, after filing the

writ petition questioning the Corrigendum-3, the 3

rd

respondent has furnished

the minutes of the meeting dated 09.03.2026 by way of memo dated

01.05.2026 wherein the reasons for rejecting the petitioner‟s technical bid

were shown. The reasons stated by the 3

rd

respondent are that the JV

member has produced contractor registration of Telangana state, the

petitioner has produced GST registration of Gujarat State and that the prime

quantities requirement is not satisfied as per eligibility criteria stipulated in the

bid document. He further submitted that, the said reasons are unsustainable

because the petitioner, being the lead partner has the contractor registration

of State of Andhra Pradesh which would satisfy the requirements and; the

tender notice itself prescribes that, if not already having AP GST registration,

an undertaking to obtain the same before entering into LOA to be given, which

was already submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that, as per the

bid documents the minimum quantity required for supply of Fabrication and

Erection is 872.28 MT during any one year in the last 10 years whereas the

petitioner and the JV partner have executed more than the minimum quantity

required. Hence, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner for the

stated reasons is unsustainable and is totally without application of mind. As

such, prayed to set aside the entire tender process by allowing both the writ

petitions.

7

11 (a). On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the 5

th

respondent

contended that, Corrigendum-3 is not the reason for petitioner‟s

disqualification or for the acceptance of 5

th

respondents‟ bid. In the counter

filed by the 2

nd

respondent, it was mentioned that petitioner‟s disqualification

was primarily based on the reason that all the bidders were supposed to have

undertaken at least 872.28 MT of Supply, Fabrication and Erection works in at

least one year within last 10 years and the petitioner does not possess the

required experience. He further submitted that, as per special conditions of

the initial notice inviting tender (at para 38(27)) the experience certificates, to

prove the same, have to be signed by the relevant Executive Engineer and

Counter signed by a Superintending Engineer or any other superior officer but

the documents submitted by the petitioner in that regard are not signed by the

authority, as such they cannot be relied upon. The other reason for the

disqualification of the petitioner bid is that the JV partner of the petitioner‟s

company is a registered contractor in the State of Telangana but not in the

State of A.P. as per required conditions. The subject contract is a highly

technical work and since the petitioner company has not having the technical

qualification as required, their bid was rightly rejected by the authority.

(b) The learned Senior counsel further submitted that, the Corrigendum-3 is

issued on 14.02.2026, which are not a mandatory conditions and the petitioner

has questioned the said corrigendum-3 only on 16.03.2026 as an afterthought

after being unsuccessful in the tender process, without any legal grounds,

nearly after one month. He further submitted that, the petitioner having

8

submitted the bid as a Joint venture along with JV partner, filed the writ

petitions in individual capacity without arraying the JV partner as a party to the

lis, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground as

well. He further submitted that, on 09.03.2026, Letter of Acceptance (LOA)

was issued to 5

th

respondent and the 5

th

respondent has accepted the same

and complied with all the required tender formalities on 17.03.2026 except

agreement and the petitioner has not questioned the same. He further

submitted that, once an LOA has been executed, it becomes a binding

contract as held in Jawahar LalBurman Vs UOI

1

. As such, the petitioner

company has not made out any points warranting the interference of this court

with the tender process and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition

being meritless. In support of his contentions, the learned standing counsel

relied on nearly 18 judgments and emphasized particularly on Tata Motors

Limited Vs Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking &

Others

2

, Afcons Infrastructure Vs Nagpur Metro

3

, M/s.N.G.Projects

Limited Vs M/s Vinod Kumar Jain & others

4

.

12 (a). Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation on counter submitted that,

since the authorities have found „Stock Yard‟ within the limits of Barrage

where the dismantled components could be stacked, they have issued

Corrigendum-1 and as no bids were received within the prescribed time, the

respondents contemplated to extend the Bid Submission date further by

1

(1962) 3 SCR 769

2

(2023) 19 Supreme Court Cases 1

3

(2016) 16 SCC 818

4

2022 AIR (SC) 1531

9

issuing a Corrigendum-2 and due to a technical glitch, the uploaded document

remained invisible.

(b) He further submitted that, since the Barrage safely discharges over

3000 TMC of flood water from July to September, mandating a 500 km

workshop radius was a direct, legally binding compliance with the World

Bank's mandate to mitigate catastrophic flood risks, the introduction of the

preference for a 500 km workshop radius and Electrical Class-I registration

through Corrigendum-3 is a bonafide technical requirement. He further

submitted that the conditions introduced in Corrigendum No.3 are only

preferred conditions but not mandatory for evaluation of bids submitted by

various bidders.

(c) He further submitted that, having agreed to execute the work in the

proportion of 60:40 by the petitioner and M/s. Swapna Projects Private Limited

(JV partner), both the contractors have to produce the contractor registration

certificate and GST Registration certificate of Andhra Pradesh, but the

petitioner has not produced GST registration certificate of A.P. and the JV

partner did not produced contractor registration certificate of A.P., as such,

they have not satisfied the eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender document.

He further submitted the most important and crucial requirement is that the JV

partner should have executed a minimum quantity of 872.28 MT of supply,

fabrication & erection and also should have executed 34,840.43 Sq.mts of

painting of embedded metal parts and all types of gates, stop logs etc, on

sand blasted surfaces in a year during last ten financial years whereas the

10

petitioner and JV partner, either individually or collectively have not met this

prime requirement as per the eligibility criteria stipulated in the bid document.

Hence, the petitioner‟s bid was rejected.

(d) He further submitted that, the respondents have acted in a fair

transparent, bona fide and lawful manner and provided equitable treatment to

all Bidders, by strictly adhering to the conditions of the NIT and purely based

on the certificates/documents uploaded in the e-procurement system by

various bidders and accordingly approved the bid submitted by 5

th

respondent,

being the lowest bidder and issued Letter of Acceptance (LOA) bearing

No.SE/IC/DWM/DB/ATO.4/584M dated 13-03-2026. Therefore, there is no

procedural infirmity on the part of the respondent authorities, as such prayed

to dismiss the writ petition.

13. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the very

purpose of entering into joint venture is to ensure that one of the partners

would possess the required eligibilities while both will collectively meet the

eligibility criteria. He further submitted that, without there being any such

prescription in the tender notice, disqualifying the bid document on the ground

that both the JV partners need to submit the required registration in the state

of Andhra Pradesh is irrational. He further submitted that the counter affidavit

of the 3

rd

respondent is not clear as to the parameters under which the bid

documents of the bidders are considered and disqualified and the evaluation

reports of the bids are also not enclosed. He further submitted that, earlier,

though the JV partner of the petitioner is not a registered contractor in A.P.,

11

the State of A.P., has given contract to it and the same was executed by it

successfully. Having allotted the contract to its JV partner without having a

registration in A.P. earlier, the respondent authorities cannot now raise the

ground that the JV partner has not produced a contractor certificate registered

in the State of A.P. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

14. Perused the record and considered the submissions of respective

learned counsel.

15. The petitioner has mainly questioned the issuance of the Corrigendum-

3 dated 14.02.2026 in W.P.No.7552/2026 and later filed W.P.No.13218/2026

questioning the reasons incorporated in the minutes of State Level Technical

Committee dated 09.03.2026 which was filed by the learned Government

pleader for Irrigation after filing of W.P.No.7552 of 2026. It is the contention of

the petitioner that, while the eligibility criteria of the subject tender, which

relates to Fabrication work, is to be registered as a Special Class (Fabrication

and Erection of Structural Steel) with the Government of Andhra Pradesh (1st

Respondent) which the petitioner already possess, the 3

rd

respondent has

issued Corrigendum-3 with a new prescriptions of having a local registration

as Class-l contractor (Electrical) and 500 Kms workshop radius preference,

after the bids have been submitted by various bidders including petitioner,

only to favour the Respondent No.5 who alone has the said local registration

as Class-l contractor (Electrical) and workshop and thus disqualified the

petitioner and declared the 5

th

respondent as successful bidder. The 2

nd

respondent has taken a stand that, since the Barrage safely discharges over

12

3000 TMC of flood water from July to September, mandating a 500 km

workshop radius was a direct, legally binding compliance with the World

Bank's mandate to mitigate catastrophic flood risks, the introduction of the

preference for a 500 km workshop radius and Electrical Class-I registration

through Corrigendum-3 is a bonafide technical requirement. It was also stated

that the said conditions are only preferential conditions but not mandatory.

16. As could be seen from the minutes of State Level Technical Committee

(SLTC) dated 09.03.2026, it was mentioned that, the technical bids were

opened on 20.02.2026 by the Superintending Engineer through online in the

office of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dowlaiswaram wherein

four (4 Nos.) bidders have participated in the said bid including petitioner‟s

company and the 5

th

respondent. The Chief Engineer reported that the

documents uploaded by the bidders were downloaded and evaluated by the

Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dowlaiswaram. It was further

reported that the bidder M/s Swapna Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, one of the

JV members of the petitioner (M/s Precision Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad,

Gujarat) has produced contractor registration of Telangana State and is

therefore not eligible as per the tender document. Further, the petitioner

company has produced GST Registration of Gujarat State, and the prime

quantities requirement is not satisfied as per the eligibility criteria stipulated in

the bid document. Hence, the petitioner‟s bid was not qualified. It can be

further seen that the other bidders are also not qualified as they have not met

the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the tender document. Since the 5

th

13

respondent only has satisfied the Technical criteria prescribed in the bid

document, the Chief Engineer, GDS accorded permission for opening of the

price bid and recommended to award the subject work to the 5

th

respondent

herein and placed before the SLTC for approval.

17. No doubt, the rules or conditions cannot be changed once the tender

process has commenced, even otherwise, as mentioned, they are not

mandatory conditions to reject the petitioners‟ bid. Therefore, the issuance of

Corrigendum-3 should not affect the petitioner‟s bid. However, a close reading

of the minutes of the SLTC dated 09.03.2026 would go to show that the

petitioner‟s bid was not rejected based on the conditions imposed in the

Corrigendum-3 but as they did not meet the eligibility criteria with regard to

submission of certificates and prime quantities requirement, their bid was

rejected.

18. The Technical requirement of the subject tender dated 09.01.2026 is

that the contractor should have executed a minimum quantity of 872.28 MT of

supply, fabrication & erection and also should have executed 34,840.43

Sqmts of painting of embedded metal parts and all types of gates, stop logs

etc, on sand blasted surfaces in a year during last ten financial years (2015-16

to 2024-25). The Special condition of the subject tender includes:

“In case of Projects executed in Government departments/Government

undertakings, the experience certificates should be certified by the

Executive Engineer or equivalent and counter signed by the

Superintending Engineer or equivalent and copies may be uploaded

along with tender duly self attested.”

14

19. A perusal of the evaluation of the Technical requirement pertaining to

the supply, fabrication and erection in MT submitted by the 3

rd

respondent

would indicate that the certificates submitted by petitioner company with

regard to completed works is signed only by the Engineer-in-Charge but not

countersigned by the Superintending Engineer or an officer superior to the

equivalent and Engineer-in-Charge, as required under the special conditions of

the bid and hence they are not considered. Further, it shows that the total

quantity of work executed by the petitioner and its JV partner company

together is only 730.97MT but not 872.28 MT, as required under the technical

qualification of the bid. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has not met

the eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender document irrespective of the

Corrigendum-3 issued by the 3

rd

respondent.

20. However, in Tata Motors Limited (supra 2), the Apex court has held

that, ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over

the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a

tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court

ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at

naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well

underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at

this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to

the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public

exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a

15

fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should

keep in mind.

21. In Afcons Infrastructure (supra 3), the Apex Court has held thus:

“11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. vs SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)

5

it

was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision-making

process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a

tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the

decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly,

the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or

irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible

authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached, In other

words, the decision-making process or the decision should be perverse and not

merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by

GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us.

13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the

decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to

interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or court

interferes with the decision-making process or the decision”.

22. In M/s.N.G.Projects Limited (supra 4), the Apex court has held that

writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of

the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court

does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the

present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept

in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with the contracts

involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise

to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the court should be not to

find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the court should examine as

to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure

contemplated by the tender conditions. If the court finds that there is total

5

(2016) 8 SCC 622

16

arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the

court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate

the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct

the execution of the contract.

23. Since the subject work is a highly technical work, the required work to

execute the Project is exclusively within the technical competence and

discretion of the concerned Departmental Engineers and the Department is at

absolute liberty to specify the terms, conditions and eligibility criteria when

inviting tenders in such matters.

24. It is the contention of the petitioner that, earlier, the State of A.P., has

given contract to the JV partner of the petitioner, though it is not a registered

contractor in A.P. Each tender has unique terms and conditions. Since, the

petitioner‟s JV partner did not meet the terms and conditions prescribed in the

subject tender document, their bid was rejected and it has nothing to do with

the previous tender. Therefore, their contention is untenable. Admittedly, the

LOA was already issued to the 5

th

respondent and the same was not

questioned by the petitioner. At this length of time, interfering with the same,

would affect the Public Exchequer and the public interest will be affected.

Further, it is settled law that in such highly technical matters, especially tender

matters, writ courts refrain from interfering and the tender author has absolute

discretion to set the tender terms to address the technical needs.

17

25. In view of the decisions made supra, this court finds no reason to

interfere with the impugned Corrigendum-3 and the minutes of State Level

Technical Committee dated 09.03.2026, as such both the writ petitions are

devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

BRS