Date of reserved for orders : ---- Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010317072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16901/2026 Between: 1. RR INFRA WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MS. REDDIVARI SINDHURA, REGD. OFFICE AT PLOT NO.L5,FIRST FLOOR, H.NO. 1-89/22, DOCTORS COLONY, NEAR D MART, KAVURI HILLS PHASE 2, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500081. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA. 520001 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, CHITTOOR.517001 4. M/S DHARMA CONSTRUCTIONS, DOOR NO.61-128-17, LAKSHMI NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001. ...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 Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.3 is not considering the representation of the petitioner Dt 15.06.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, contrary to the NIT and tender conditions, violative of principles of natural justice, vitiated by bias, favouritism and non-application of mind, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in its letter dated 15.06.2026 and take action strictly in accordance with the tender conditions, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to finalise or award the tender in favour of the 4th respondent any other entity pending enquiry and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to open, consider, process or act upon the financial bid of the 4th respondent in respect of e-procurement Tender Notice No.OlSE/2026-27, dated 08.04.2026, relating to Work Nos.l to 5 of the Water Resources Department, Chittoor District, and if the financial bid of the 4th respondent is already opened, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.06.2026 vis-à-vis e-procurement Tender Notice No.01SE/2026-27, dated 08.04.2026 (Ex.P2), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Venkat Narayana, learned counsel representing Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Notice of respondent No.4 is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed affecting the right and interest of respondent No.4. Page 3 of 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the respondent No.4 is not qualified; however, respondent No.3 is proceeding with the opening of financial bid in favour of respondent No.4. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.06.2026, pointing out the deficiencies of respondent No.4. Without considering the said representation, respondent No.3 is proceeding further. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri Satish, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation submitted the written instructions of respondent No.3. In the written instructions, it was stated as follows: “In this regard, it is submitted that the bidder M/s Dharma Constructions, Anantapur (4th respondent) did not fulfill the eligibility criteria stipulated in the tender condition: "Owning a Quality Control Laboratory (or) having tie-up with an established Quality Control Laboratory." Hence, the bidder was disqualified in all the above five works and did not qualify for the next stage of financial bid as per the technical evaluation report submitted by this office to the Chief Engineer, Minor & Medium Irrigation, Vijayawada (Tender approving authority).” 5. The copy of said instructions was handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. 6. Given the instructions of respondent No.3, no further adjudication is required in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 29.06.2026 TVN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 40 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.16901 OF 2026 Date: 29.06.2026 TVN