Hyderabad: Telangana high court on Monday ruled that mere participation in a tender process does not confer any enforceable right on bidders, and that the tendering authority retains the sole discretion in such matters. The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a construction firm challenging changes made to certain road work tenders.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin passed the order while hearing an appeal against a single judge’s earlier ruling that had also gone against the petitioner. The petitioner, a Karimnagar-based construction firm, had challenged tenders issued for road-widening and expansion works in connection with the upcoming Godavari Pushkaralu and for road development in Vemulawada temple town in Rajanna Sircilla district. The works, taken up by the roads and buildings department and valued at around ₹50 crore, included a stretch from Arnakonda village to Mallial crossroads for Pushkaralu-related works and another from Vemulawada to Sirikonda in the temple town area. The firm had initially submitted bids when the tenders were floated in Nov 2025. However, the state authorities subsequently cancelled the notifications and issued fresh tenders in Jan this year with revised conditions. According to the petitioner, the revised tenders increased the contract values while significantly reducing the completion timelines — from 18 months to 12 months for the Pushkaralu road project and from 15 months to six months for the temple town road works. The firm alleged that the changes were made with mala fide intentions to exclude it from the bidding process. Opposing the plea, the state govt argued that the revisions were necessitated by administrative requirements, including the need to incorporate additional drainage facilities in villages along the road stretches and the urgency of completing the works before the Godavari Pushkaralu scheduled for July 2027.In Feb, the single judge dismissed the petition, observing that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to produce material evidence indicating bias or procedural irregularities in the process. When the matter came up before the division bench in appeal, additional advocate general T Rajinikanth Reddy argued that tender conditions permit the authority to cancel the process at any stage prior to the award of a contract without assigning reasons. He further submitted that there were no allegations of mala fide intent, arbitrariness, favouritism or tailor-made tender conditions meant to benefit any particular party. In the absence of such grounds, the petitioner’s challenge was not maintainable, he contended, urging the court to dismiss the appeal.
