Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday granted the BRS three weeks, as a last opportunity, to file its counter-affidavit in two public interest litigations challenging the allotment of 11 acres of government land in Kokapet in the year 2023 to the party.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing separate PILs filed by the Forum for Good Governance and city-based advocate A. Venkatarami Reddy. The petitions questioned the allotment of land in Survey No.s 239 and 240 of Kokapet to the BRS for setting up an ‘institute of excellence and human resource development’.
The petitioners alleged that the land parcel, located in a prime area of Kokapet, had been allotted for ₹3.41 crore though its market value was around ₹550 crore. They contended that the allotment was made for a political purpose and not for any public benefit.
On Monday, counsel for the BRS sought four weeks to file the counter-affidavit. He argued that the petitioners had selectively challenged the allotment made to the BRS while not questioning similar allotments made to the Congress.
The bench observed that the BRS had entered appearance in the matter and had sought time on several previous occasions. Refusing to grant four weeks, the court said three weeks was being given as a final indulgence and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
The state government filed counters after the High Court had granted it a final opportunity in December 2025 to place its stand on record.
Telangana HC Upholds KGBV Bunk Bed Contract, Dismisses Petition Against Mafatlal Industries
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court upheld the government’s award of contract and agreement entered into with Mafatlal Industries Limited and Trufa Enterprise Private Limited for the installation of 45,360 bunk beds along with mattresses and pillows in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs) across Telangana.
The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by the Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association and certain private agencies challenging the state’s decision and the proceedings of the state project director, Samagra Shiksha of Telangana, to go ahead with the contract.
According to the petitioners, Clause 5 of the tender required completion of supply within 120 days from the agreement dated May 29, 2025. Since Mafatlal Industries and others allegedly failed to complete supplies within that period, the authorities ought to have issued a fresh tender instead of executing a supplementary agreement on November 29, 2025, granting an additional 120 days. They also complained that the exorbitant prices favoured the sucessful bidders.
Additional advocate-general Tera Rajanikanth Reddy, representing the state, submitted that the petitioners had not participated in the tender process initiated by the notification dated April 26, 2025. It was argued that a non-participant in the tender process could not maintain a challenge to it, since such a person cannot be treated as aggrieved by the tendering authority’s decision.
Senior counsel B. Chandrasen Reddy and B. Vamshidhar Reddy appearing for Mafatlal Industries and others submitted that a complaint alleging exorbitant pricing and favours to certain institutions had been made on May 27, 2025. Pursuant to that complaint, a committee was constituted, inquiry conducted, and a report was submitted with a finding that the tender process had been conducted fairly and that Mafatlal Industries had agreed to execute the work at a modified rate, resulting in a saving of seven per cent, quantified at `10.72 crore.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Surepalli Nanda held that the petitioners’ allegations that the officials had favoured the successful bidders and enabled them to earn exorbitant profits were unsupported by any material on record.
The court also reiterated the settled principle governing judicial review in tender matters, observing that the authority which authored the tender document was the best placed to understand and appreciate its requirements, and that its interpretation ought not to be second-guessed by a court in exercise of judicial review jurisdiction.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
