APHC010299292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT APPEAL NO: 512 of 2026 M/s.Mahadeva Enterprises Vs. The Union of India and others Reserved for orders on: Pronounced on: Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether full judgment is pronounced: CORAM : Hon’ble The CHIEF JUSTICE Smt. LISA GILL Hon’ble Sri JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present:- Advocate for Appellant: Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): JAYASURYA, J: Feeling aggrieved by Order dated 09.02.2026 of the learned Single Judge, petitioner in W.P.No.31340 of 2024 filed the present 2. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL), Boiler Auxiliaries Plant E-Auction Tender Notice dated 16.12.2024 invited tenders for sale of scrap material i.e., Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 512 of 2026 and others ...Respondent(s) ********** 16.06.2026 23.07.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether full judgment is FULL Hon’ble The CHIEF JUSTICE Smt. LISA GILL Hon’ble Sri JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Mr. N.Sai Phanindra Kumar appearing for CKR Associates Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. P.Roy Reddy Feeling aggrieved by Order dated 09.02.2026 of the learned Single Judge, petitioner in W.P.No.31340 of 2024 filed the present appeal. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL), Boiler Auxiliaries Plant Auction Tender Notice dated 16.12.2024 invited tenders for sale of scrap material i.e., Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at Ramagiri (12 Nos. x HCJ & NJSJ WA_512_2026 Bench Sr.No:-27 [3579] ...Appellant ...Respondent(s) Mr. N.Sai Phanindra Kumar appearing for Feeling aggrieved by Order dated 09.02.2026 of the learned Single appeal. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL), Boiler Auxiliaries Plant vide Auction Tender Notice dated 16.12.2024 invited tenders for sale of scrap Ramagiri (12 Nos. x 2 HCJ & NJSJ WA_512_2026 250 KW = 3 MW) and Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at Kadavakallu (16 Nos. x 250 KW = 4 MW). Pursuant to the said Notification, writ petitioner participated in the E-Auction held on 23.12.2024, submitted its bids by depositing an amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs in respect of Ramagiri site and Rs.16.00 Lakhs for Kadavakallu site. It stood as H1-highest bidder in respect of Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at Kadavakallu i.e., Lot 2, whereas its bid for Lot 1 i.e., Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at Ramagiri was not accepted. 3. On 27.12.2024, 2nd respondent through an E-Mail informed the writ petitioner that it’s’ bid for Lot 2 is rejected. Representation dated 27.12.2024 was made to the 2nd respondent with a request to accept writ petitioner’s bid and that it is ready to comply with the terms and conditions of the E-Auction Notice. 2nd respondent issued fresh Tender Notice No.81944 dated 27.12.2024 for sale of Lot 2 i.e., Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at Kadavakallu and scheduled the auction on 30.12.2024. 4. Rejection of petitioner’s bid in respect of Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at Kadavakallu was challenged inter alia on the premise that the action of 2nd respondent without assigning any reasons or any notice to the petitioner after declaring it as H1 (highest bidder) as illegal, arbitrary, irrational etc. Consequential relief to set aside E-Auction sale in respect of Lot 2 ie., Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at Kadavakallu vide Tender E- 3 HCJ & NJSJ WA_512_2026 Auction No.81944 and a direction to declare the petitioner as highest bidder in respect of the said material was sought for. 5. Writ Petition was moved by way of Lunch Motion on 30.12.2024 and the learned Single Judge on 31.12.2024 passed the following interim orders: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit and considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, there shall be an interim stay of E-Auction Sale of material i.e., Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at Kadavakallu (16 Nos x 250 KW = 4MW) i.e., Lot 2 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Tender E-Auction No.81944, if not conducted on 30.12.2024.” 6. Subsequently, 2nd respondent filed counter along with a vacate stay petition on 21.08.2025 inter alia stating that auction was conducted on 30.12.2024, writ petitioner participated in the same and that the Order dated 31.12.2024 is, thus, rendered infructuous. Further, that scrap material of wind electric generators sought to be sold was in the open ground, subjected to speedy deterioration and due to theft of material from site, 2nd respondent had lost material worth Rs.20 Lakhs. 7. Learned Single Judge taking into account undisputed subsequent events, felt it appropriate not to adjudicate on the merits of the rejection of petitioner’s bid in respect of Lot 2 material and directed fresh process so as to provide equal opportunity to all eligible participants, including the petitioner. 4 HCJ & NJSJ WA_512_2026 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner. Also heard Mr.P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel representing 2nd respondent. 9. Perused the material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the learned Single Judge erred in disposing of the writ petition without considering the matter in the proper perspective. It is his contention that no reasons were assigned for rejecting the bid of appellant-petitioner who was H1 highest bidder in respect of Lot 2 i.e., Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs). Further that no opportunity was afforded much less, an opportunity of hearing before the said rejection. He also submitted that though a representation was made on 27.12.2024 i.e., on the very same day of rejection of petitioner’s bid, readiness and willingness to comply with all the terms and conditions was expressed, a fresh E-Auction Notice dated 27.12.2024 mentioning 30.12.2024 as the date of E-Auction was issued. Such an action, he submits is contrary to Law and violative of principles of natural justice, learned Judge erred in not appreciating the said aspects. 11. Referring to an Order dated 18.12.2025 and counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, he submits that the petitioner is justified in not accepting the proposal / willingness to accommodate it for the highest bid, as there was substantial shortage of material, which was noticed by writ petitioner in October, 2025. Be that as it may, he submits that learned Single Judge without adjudicating the legality of rejection of petitioner’s highest bid, 5 HCJ & NJSJ WA_512_2026 erroneously directed fresh auction, thereby not only interest of the petitioner is prejudiced but object of transparency in public auction is also affected. Further that mere participation in the re-auction would not come in the way of petitioner seeking adjudication of its rights in respect of the first auction for sale of Lot 2 Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs). Making the said submissions, learned counsel referring to the material on record seeks to set aside the order under challenge. 12. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent made submissions inter alia to the effect that petitioner having participated in re-auction, without disclosing the said aspect, secured order dated 31.12.2024. Further, it did not come forward to accept the proposal made by the 2nd respondent, to which a reference was made in the order dated 18.12.2025. He submits that, petitioner is not entitled for any relief, however, learned Single Judge instead of dismissing the writ petition, disposed of the same with certain directions and that no case is made out for interference to exercise the powers under Letters Patent. 13. Considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. 14. Facts with reference to issuance of Tender Notification, participation of the writ petitioner, that it is highest bidder / H1 in respect of Lot 2 Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) are not in dispute. Material available on record, however, does not disclose that bid of the writ petitioner was accepted by the 2nd respondent. But the fact remains that bid of writ petitioner was rejected on 6 HCJ & NJSJ WA_512_2026 27.12.2024, no reasons were stated and no opportunity was afforded. In normal circumstances, perhaps Writ Court would have examined correctness or otherwise of the rejection proceedings. But in the case on hand, it is not in dispute that subsequent to rejection of petitioner’s bid in respect of Lot 2 Scrap Wind Electric Generators (WEGs), re-auction was scheduled on 30.12.2024 and conducted on the said date, but appears to have not been proceeded further in view of writ petition filed by the petitioner and the orders dated 31.12.2024. 15. At this stage, it may be pertinent to reiterate that the writ petitioner, for whatever reasons, participated in re-auction dated 30.12.2024 and the said aspect, in all fairness, should have been stated before Writ Court while passing Order dated 31.12.2024. Non-disclosure of said material aspect goes to the root of the matter and disentitles petitioner securing any relief, much less interim relief. That apart, by participating in the re-auction on 30.12.2024, it tacitly accepted rejection of its bid. Further, writ petitioner had not acceded to the proposal / willingness of the 2nd respondent to accommodate it for the highest bid pursuant to the Order dated 18.12.2025, purportedly in view of reduction / shortage of scrap material sought to be sold. 16. In such circumstances, order of the learned Single Judge taking into consideration subsequent events and the directions issued therein does not cause prejudice to the writ petitioner. In fact, directions issued by the Writ Court would ensure transparency and enable prospective bidders, including 7 HCJ & NJSJ WA_512_2026 writ petitioner to submit competitive bids, since the subject matter scrap material was sought to be sold on “as is whereis basis”. 17. Having examined the matter, this Court is of the considered view that learned Writ Court has not committed any illegality in not deciding validity of petitioner’s bid, in the facts and circumstances stated supra. Therefore, contentions raised on behalf of appellant are rejected. 18. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) (NINALA JAYASURYA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Date: 23RD July, 2026 BLV Uploaded on : 23.07.2026 Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes/No 8 HCJ & NJSJ WA_512_2026 HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.LISA GILL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.A.No: 512 OF 2026 Date: 23.07.2026 BLV