[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd vs Hyderabad Metro-Politan Water Supply ... on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.414 of 2026
DATED: 10.04.2026
Between:
Gypsum Structural India Pvt. Ltd.,
A company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956 and
having its office at 185-A, Pocket B,
Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi - 110 091.
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
Mr. Syed Abdul Samad, S/o. Syed Abdul Gaffur,
aged about 50 years.
... Appellant
AND
Hyderabad Metro-Politan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board, having its office at #6-2-915,
Rear Block, 3rd Floor, HMWSSB Premises,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004,
Telangana, India & another
... Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. D.Narendar Naik, learned counsel representing Mr. Sai Sanjay
Suraneni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. A.Veeresh Kumar,
learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) appearing for respondent No.1 and
Mr. G.Bhaskar, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department (MA & UD) appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition is directed against the condition 3.7(a)(i) and (ii) in
Section II of the Tender dated 24.03.2026 as being arbitrary and illegal and fit to
be quashed. The matter was taken up on 08.04.2026 by the learned writ Court
when the learned writ Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for
HMWSSB and learned Government Pleader for MA & UD to take notice and
file counter affidavits. Petitioner has assailed the said order in the present
appeal.
3. In essence, the contention of the appellant is that the impugned terms and
conditions of the tender notification though not render it ineligible but places it
in a much disadvantageous position by prescribing arbitrary norms which are
not in the public interest and rather intended to favour few persons. Therefore, it
has prayed for interim protection in the present appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for HMWSSB appearing for respondent No.1
submits that the submission of tender has been closed at 11.00 A.M. today. It is
submitted that the challenge of the tender conditions made by the appellant
could be determined only after completion of pleadings. As such, in public
projects such as this, no interim relief can be granted.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In
the nature of a challenge to a tender condition as being arbitrary and
discriminatory, at this stage, no interim relief as prayed for can be allowed in
view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Raunaq
International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. 1. The learned writ Court has
also, therefore, deemed it proper not to grant any interim relief and adjudicate
the issue after completion of the pleadings. Respondents have been asked to file
counter affidavits. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the impugned
order.
6. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the learned writ
Court would endeavour to decide the writ petition in an expeditious manner.
Learned Standing Counsel for HMWSSB appearing for respondent No.1 and
learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing for respondent No.2
submit that counter affidavits will be filed within two weeks. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 10.04.2026
KL
AIR 1999 SC 393
