Suppression is Fatal in Railway Contracts: Telangana HC

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court upheld the disqualification of M/s Tharu and Sons from a South Central Railway tender, for suppression of material facts relating to prior termination. Such debarment renders a bidder ineligible under the tender conditions.

A two-judge panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a writ appeal filed challenging an order of the single judge who also rejected the plea of the appellant. The South Central Railway issued an e-tender in May 2025 for a turnkey contract relating to mechanised laundry services. Though the appellant was declared the L-1 bidder, its qualification was questioned by M/s Leotech Process, the L-2 bidder, on the ground that the appellant had failed to disclose the termination of its earlier contract by Northern Railway under the General Conditions of Contract, along with a two-year debarment.

The panel noted that the tender document mandated full and truthful disclosure of prior terminations and debarments. It found that the appellant admittedly did not disclose these facts when submitting its bid. The panel rejected the appellant’s reliance on an interim stay granted by the Delhi High Court, holding that an interim order does not absolve a bidder of disclosure obligations.

Agreeing with the single judge, the panel held that non-disclosure of material facts strikes at the fairness and transparency of the tender process and amounts to a serious defect. While reiterating that courts ordinarily exercise restraint in tender matters, the panel observed that judicial interference is justified where the decision-making process is vitiated by suppression of material information.

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court heard, inconclusively, a writ plea challenging multiple criminal prosecutions initiated against the branch manager of Andhra Bank. The prosecution was sought to be justified notwithstanding the protective shield available under Section 32 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

The petitioner contended that the very documents alleged to be forged in the various FIRs were already part of proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) as such no prima facie offence was made out. He further pointed out that once the matter is seized by the DRT, it is within the exclusive domain of the Tribunal to examine the genuineness and evidentiary value of the documents and initiation of parallel criminal proceedings on the same set of documents amounts to an abuse of process.

The judge observed that Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act expressly bars prosecution against banks and their officers for actions undertaken in good faith while enforcing security interests. The judge further remarked that prosecution on the very same documents that are under scrutiny before the DRT cannot be permitted, particularly when the bank has acted within the four corners of the statute. However, the judge posted the matter for further orders.

Justice K. Sharath of the Telangana High Court directed the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC) to file its response in the writ petition concerning delays in faculty recruitment at the Forest College and Research Institute, Mulugu.

The judge was dealing with a plea filed by Dr Sreenu Pendli. The petitioner challenged the failure of the TGPSC and other respondents to complete the recruitment process initiated under the notification issued in August 2022, for the posts of professor, associate professor, and assistant professor at the institute. The petitioner contended that the failure of the respondents to complete the recruitment process was illegal, arbitrary, and unjust.

The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to complete the selection process for faculty posts under the said notification. The petitioner also sought a direction to appoint the petitioner as assistant professor in Botany in the Basic and Social Sciences Department against the OC (open competition) vacancy, in accordance with the notification. The judge, after hearing the preliminary submissions, posted the matter for further hearing.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court reprimanded the principal secretary, panchayat raj department, for non-compliance of the Court’s order and extended the opportunity to comply within two weeks.

N. Sridhar was present through virtual mode in a contempt case. The matter pertains to the non-deposit of compensation awarded for land acquired for formation of the Venkatadripalem–Dilawarpur road via Chintapally, with execution proceedings pending before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority at Nampally.

Earlier, the High Court directed the respondent authorities to deposit 50 per cent of the decretal compensation amount after noting that compensation awarded in favour of the landowners was not deposited despite directions, leading to initiation of contempt proceedings.

During the hearing, the respondent, the principal secretary, submitted that the file for depositing 50 per cent decretal amount was sent to the finance department and that the directions in the writ petition would be complied with within two weeks. Recording the submission, the Court directed the first respondent to place an affidavit to that extent on record and posted the matter after two weeks for reporting compliance.