APHC010549632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28747/2025 BETWEEN: 1. VRED EXIM, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.VIVEK REDDY, HAVING OFFICE D.No.35 LANE, NEAR REVENUE WARD No.26, DHARAVARITHOTHA ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR P.VIVEK REDDY 2. P.VIVEK REDDY, S/o. P.VIJAYA ITUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR, M/S.VRED EXIM, HAVING OFFICE D.NO.35 LANE, NEAR REVENUE WARD NO.26, D ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THE STATE OF AND PRADESH, ARRIVAL BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ARRIVAL BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28747/2025 VRED EXIM, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.VIVEK REDDY, HAVING OFFICE D.No.35-3-69-371(C), BHAGYANAGAR, 4TH LANE, NEAR REVENUE WARD No.26, DHARAVARITHOTHA ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR P.VIVEK REDDY P.VIVEK REDDY, S/o. P.VIJAYA ITUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR, M/S.VRED EXIM, HAVING OFFICE D.NO.35-3-69-371(C), BHAGYANAGAR, 4TH LANE, NEAR REVENUE WARD NO.26, DHARAVARITHOTHA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THE STATE OF AND PRADESH, ARRIVAL BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ARRIVAL BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. : 17.02.2026 Pronounced on : 24.02.2026 : 27.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO VRED EXIM, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.VIVEK REDDY, 371(C), BHAGYANAGAR, 4TH LANE, NEAR REVENUE WARD No.26, DHARAVARITHOTHA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR P.VIVEK REDDY, S/o. P.VIJAYA ITUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR, M/S.VRED EXIM, 371(C), BHAGYANAGAR, 4TH HARAVARITHOTHA, ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ARRIVAL BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ARRIVAL BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU 2 4. VASI REDDY ACQA FARM, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR VASI REDDY VANDANA, W/o. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O.L24 VENKANAPALEM VILLAGE, MANUNOLU MANDAL S.P.S.R NELLORE DISTRICT, ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT D.NO.22, SRI SATYA ICE FACTORY, ORAGALLI CROSS ROAD, CHILLAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No l to 3 in permitting the respondent No.4 to establish the Automated Testing Station of Bapatla District at Sy.No.810, Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District instead of land in an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.658-6B3, Chandolu Village, PittlavariPalem Mandal, Bapatla District as per Form-C Letter of Undertaking for the Land contrary to the Request for Proposal No.l7021/80/20 22/RSC, dated 21.03.2025 for establishment of Automated Testing Station of Bapatla District, even though no provision is provided for changing of the declared land for station by the bidders as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power. contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender, apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.l to 3 to cancel the Preliminary Registration Certificate granted in favour of respondent No.4 to establish the Automated Testing Station of Bapatla District at Sy.No.810, Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District and further direct the respondents No.l to 3 to follow the Section 3(h) of the Request for Proposal NO.17021/80/2022/RSC, dated 21.03.2025 for establishment of Automated Testing Station of Bapatla District and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR TRANSPORT 2. MULLA SOHAIL SHAREEF The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: “to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in permitting the respondent No.4 to establish the Automated Testing Station of Baptla District at Sy.No.810, Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District instead of land in an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.658-6B3, Chandolu Village, Pittlavaripalem Mandal, Bapatla District as per Form-C Letter of Undertaking for the Land contrary to the Request for Proposal No.17021/80/2022/RSC, dated 21.03.2025 for establishment of Automated Testing Station of Bapatla District, even though no provision is provided for changing of the declared land for station by the bidders as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender, apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to cancel the Preliminary Registration Certificate granted in favour of respondent No.4 to establish the Automated Testing Station of Baptka District at Sy.No.810, Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Baptla District and further direct the respondent No.1 to 3 to follow the Section 3(h) of the Request for Proposal No.17021/80/2022/RSC, dated 21.03.2025 for establishment of Automated Testing Station of Baptla District and pass such other order or orders….. 4 2. Heard Sri B. Abhai Siddanth Mootha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mulla Sohail Shareef, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 3. The Transport Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh (for short hereafter referred to as ‘organisation’) issued R.F.P. (Request for Proposal) No.17021/80/2022/RSC, vide tender document dated 21.03.2025 for establishment of Automated Testing Station at Bapatla District, inviting tenders from the stakeholders. Unofficial respondent No.4 stood as H1 bidder, vide preliminary PRC (Preliminary Registration Certificate) dated 16.04.2025 and later, the organization has issued revised PRC dated 04.07.2025. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the revised PRC dated 04.07.2025 issued in favour of the 4th unofficial respondent. 4. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that as per the tender document, the organization cannot issue revised PRC as it is contrary to sub-Section 5(e) and sub-Section 8(f) of Section 2 of the tender document and also further contended that the issuance of revised PRC dated 04.07.2025 is contrary to qualification conditions and also contrary to sub-Section 13(c) and 18 (iv) of tender document. Hence, prayed to direct the respondents to set aside the revised PRC issued in favour of the 4th unofficial respondent as it is violation of tender conditions. 5 5. It is imperative to take review of the relevant provisions governing the issue and the relevant provisions are hereby extracted: Sub-section 5(e) of Section 2: the E-bids once submitted, cannot be viewed, retrieved or corrected. The E-Bidder should ensure the correctness of the E-Bed prior to uploading and take printout of the system generated summary of submission to confirm successful uploading of E-bid. The E-bids cannot be opened even by the OIT/Opener before the due date and time of opening. Sub-section (8)(f) of Section 2: The Technical Bid shall comprise of the following documents which are to be scanned and uploaded: S. No. Qualification Conditions Documents to be uploaded 6. Ownership of the Premise/ Land of ATS: Premise/ Land where ATS is to be established shall be either be owned or taken on lease or hired by the owner for a period not less than 10 years. The Sole/ Lead Bidder shall submit undertaking for Land Ownership.  Documentary Proof of Ownership of Land/Proof of Lease to be submitted. Or Consent letter from the Land Owner for leasing the premises.  Undertaking in Form (C) of this RFP signed by authorized signatory.  Copy of the document in case of self owned property, shall be submitted. In case of property taken on Lease/Hire, the consent letter from the land owner is sufficient with the condition that, the successful bidder shall enter in to lease agreement within 30 days from the award of the contract, failing which the award gets cancelled automatically. 6 Sub-section 13(c) of Section 2: No bidder shall carryout any revision/correction/modification in his bid after the last date of submission of Bids. Sub-Section 18(iv) of Section 2 – Exclusion of Bids/ Disqualification: the Bid materially departs from the requirements specified in the Bid document or it contains false information. 6. The petitioner submits that the 4th unofficial respondent has submitted tender application for Bapatla District to establish the Automated Testing Station in an extent of 4046 Sq. meters in Survey No.316/13 of West Bapatla village, Baptla Mandal and District. Accordingly, the organization has issued preliminary PRC on 16.04.2025. The 4th unofficial respondent also submitted Form-C along with an undertaking to establish the Automated Testing Station in Bapatla. Later, he applied to the organization for permission to set up the Automated Testing Station in Chandolu village, Pittalavari Palem Mandal, Bapatla District, in an area of Ac.0.81 cents, Sy.No.658-6B3 and the said representation was considered by the respondents and issued revised PRC on 04.07.2025 and it is contended that is contrary to the Form-C and the provisions that referred supra and the organization cannot revised or reviewed the Preliminary Registration Certificate (PRC) as outlined in the tender document. Hence, prayed to set aside the revised PRC dated 04.07.2025 issued to the unofficial 7 respondent and consequently prayed to declare the petitioner as H1 Bidder. 7. The 4th unofficial respondent-H1 bidder filed counter affidavit denying all the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners stating that the land owner of Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatla District has withdrew his consent subsequent to the confirmation of the Bid i.e. preliminary PRC dated 16.04.2025, that is due to the plan engineered by the 2nd petitioner which prevailed upon the land owner, resulting in the lease not being granted by the land owner at Baptla. The organisation has acknowledged the request made and accepted the above contention allowing to establish the Automated Testing Station at Chandolu village, Bapatla Mandal and the same was considered by the organization and revised PRC dated 04.07.2025 was issued and which does not constitute any revision or review, correction/ modification to the Bid, as it was not submitted after the last date of the submission of Bids as stipulated under sub-Section 13(c) of Section 2 of the Tender Document. Petitioner’s counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. N.G. Projects Limited v. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain1 for the proposition that if the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender application has been granted in a malafied manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the 1 2022 (6) SCC 127 8 grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to inject the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present day Governments are expected to work. 8. And the counsel for the 4th respondent also relied on the following tow judgments of the Apex Court in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd., v. Nair Coal Services Ltd and others2 and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others3. 9. In the case of M/s. Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & another4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when, it comes to a conclusion 2 (2006) 11 SCC 548 3 (2007) 14 SCC 517 4 (2005) 6 SCC 138 9 that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should interfere. In the judgments of Jagdish Mandal (supra 3) and in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd., (supra 2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made ‘lawfully’ and not to check whether choice or decision is ‘sound’. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, Courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tender, is made out. 10. The counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent vehemently contended that the writ petitioners have not demonstrated any arbitrariness, irrationality, or unreasonableness to the respondents. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent stated or asserted that the 2nd petitioner is mastermind who engineered a plan to prevent the granting of a lease to the 4th unofficial respondent in collusion with Bapatala land owner where the ATS is to be established. 10 In these circumstances, the 4th respondent prays to dismiss the Writ petition. 11. The organization i.e. the 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit and it is asserted that the 4th respondent having failed to commence civil work in pursuance to preliminary PRC issued, has submitted a representation on 14.05.2025 seeking extension of time for submission of registered lease document of the land, where the Automated Testing Station is to be established, stating the land owner was hospitalized. Since, the 4th respondent in spite of extension of time not submitted registered lease documents of the land, a show-cause notice was issued vide letter R.No.18021/25/2024/RSC, dated 27.05.2025 to the 4th respondent and sought for explanation. 12. In response to the show cause notice, the 4th respondent has submitted explanation stating that “on his further investigation it was discovered that the landowner has colluded with certain unsuccessful bid participants from the earlier tendering process and it appears that the land owner accepted payments from the parties to intentionally cause the cancellation of PRC. This was purportedly done with the aim of forcing the ATS project to be re-tendered, thereby allowing these competitors to re-bid and potentially secure the tender and these malafide actions have directly prevented them from completing the lease deed registration as required.” And it is further stated that the 11 premises changed in the revised PRC is 15 Kms away from the District Headquarters and the earlier is 20 Kms distance. The said revised PRC was issued only after satisfying all the requisite conditions need to be filed by the bidder and upon payment of penalty imposed on the 4th respondent for delay in commencing civil work as per sub-Section 5(f) of Section 4 of Request For Proposal (RFP). Further a legal contention was raised stating that once the Preliminary Registration Certificate was issued, technicalities could not be raised by the writ petitioner. 13. In the counter it is further stated that as per the clause 5(c) of the Section 4 of Request For Proposal (RFP) suitability of land as follows: (C) The suitability of the project site for ATS is defined as below: (i) Project Site (Land) should be located with the concerned District and at a place not beyond the radius of 30 kilometers from the District Magistrate Office. (ii) Project site should not be next to the Power Station and also it should not have any overhead High-tension line passing over the project site. (iii) Project site should be free from all encumbrances. (iv) Project site should be either on national highways or State Highways or District roads. (v) The approach road to the Project Site should be minimum 07 meters wide so that it will not hinder the movement of heavy vehicles coming for fitness test. 12 14. It is further stated that as per the tender document that the requirement that stipulated under the RFP with respect to land is that the bidder shall furnish a valid proof of ownership or lease and ensure that the proposed site satisfies the prescribed suitability criteria. Upon issuance of the PRC, the process moves from the stage of evaluation to that of implementation, and the RFP nowhere restricts administrative modifications when warranted and when all mandatory conditions continue to be fulfilled. And the present place of ATS enhances road safety and ensure effective vehicle testing and certification mechanisms. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 15. Point for consideration: The petitioners’ counsel advanced the arguments with a smirk. The tenuous arguments presented by the petitioners’ counsel, accompanied by inappropriate demeanour is that the organisation cannot alter or change the rules once the process or game has commenced and referenced the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited v. Mandeepa Enterprises and others5. The purport of the judgment in Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Limited case (supra 5) is that the fundamental principle that no order can be passed by any 5 2025 INSC 1108 13 court in any judicial proceeding against any party without hearing and without giving such party an opportunity of hearing. Wherein, the said case, the L2 bidder has submitted an application subsequent to the entire bidding process was over and the financial bids were opened and the application was rejected by the organization therein. Assailing the same, a Writ Petition came to be filed before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. Following this, the H2 bidder filed an intra Court appeal before the division bench, which allowed the Writ Appeal. The appellant before the Apex Court, who was the H1 bidder, then challenged the Division Bench's order in the Supreme Court, which set aside the Division Bench's finding on the grounds that no order can be made against any party without providing them the opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the facts therein and the facts herein are entirely different and the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the present facts of the case. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th unofficial respondent would submit that erstwhile land owner has not granted the lease due to the plan engineered by the 2nd petitioner herein and he has not made any application to revise or review the bid as per the conditions stipulated in the tender document. And due to the act of the writ petitioners, the 4th respondent has incurred huge loss and he is unable to establish the 14 same. And also stated that the writ petitioner is not attributed any arbitrariness or irrationality and unreasonableness and bias on the part of the official and unofficial respondents. And the judgments referred by the respondents are clearly applicable to the present facts of the case and the Court should refrain from entertaining under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in awarding contract. 17. In such a writ petition filed by an unsuccessful bidder, the limited question to be considered by the Court is as to whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority was malafide, arbitrary, irrational or was intended to favour someone and whether public interest was affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Permitting an unsuccessful bidder to raise grievance after opening of the financial bid would set a bad precedent. If it is permitted, grievance of all kinds and of all sorts would be forthcoming and the contracts would never get executed and the tender is filed in conformity with tender conditions and after confirming the tender if it was so entitled and enabled, a post opening grievance wouldn’t give the writ petitioner’s a cause of action. 18. This Court vide order dated 17.10.2025, has suspended the revised PRC dated 04.07.2024 granted in favour of the petitioner herein. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned 15 counsel for the respondents, and on perusal of the documents filed and the law held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds no arbitrariness, irrationality in granting the contract to the 4th unofficial respondent. The 4th respondent specifically pleaded in his counter that at the behest and the plan engineered by the 2nd petitioner, the earlier land owner did not granted a lease, this contention has not been denied by the writ petitioners by way of reply. In absence of the denial, it shall be deemed that the petitioners are accepted the said contention. The 2nd respondent has stated that the present site is more feasible rather than the earlier site. 19. In National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd., Vs. Montecarlo Ltd., and another6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows : "48. Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of the prima facie opinion that the decision is as such perverse and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fides and/or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petition and/or pass any appropriate interim order, High 6 (2022) 6 SCC 401 16 Court may put to the writ petitioner's notice that in case the petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it, he/they may be saddled with the damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to such frivolous litigations initiated by him/it. With these words of caution and advise, we rest the matter there and leave it to the wisdom of the Court(s) concerned, which ultimately may look to the larger public interest and the national interest involved." 20. This writ petition has been filed with the aim to cancel the PRC issued in favour the 4th unofficial respondent, who managed the landowner interested in granting a lease to this respondent. The Court finds that the petitioners filed this writ petition to harass the 4th unofficial respondent and to delay the execution of ATS. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the A.P. High Court Employees Association. The said costs must be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing to do so it constitute a violation of the order and this Court will not hesitate to exercise its power under contempt of Courts Act, for realization of the said amount. 21. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.02.2026 Harin 17 17 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 28747 OF 2025 Date: 24-02-2026 Harin