The Telangana High Court has declined to halt the tender process for Hyderabad’s Radial Road-2 project, allowing proceedings to continue while directing the successful L-1 bidder for three packages to be added to a legal challenge filed by Sushee Infra and Mining Limited.
A bench headed by Justice B Vijaysen Reddy directed Sushee Infra to implead the lowest bidder, which has emerged successful in the three project packages, as a party to the case. The state government and other respondents have been asked to file their counters within two weeks.
The challenge concerns Sushee Infra’s disqualification at the technical bid stage for packages linked to the proposed road from the Outer Ring Road at Kothwalguda, also known as Budwel, to NH-167N near Nacharam. The project is being executed by Hyderabad Growth Corridor Limited.
The three packages cover the route from Budwel to Shabad, Shabad to Gudur and Gudur to Nacharam. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the L-1 bidder’s quoted price across the three packages was about Rs 600 crore higher than the rates quoted by Sushee Infra. The petitioner argued that failing to consider its bid could impose an additional burden on the state exchequer.
The government opposed interim relief, arguing that judicial intervention was not warranted after the technical and financial bids had been opened and the tender process had substantially progressed. Government counsel also submitted that an order obstructing infrastructure execution would be inappropriate at this stage.
The dispute centres on the validity of an experience certificate submitted by Sushee Infra. Authorities have contended that the certificates furnished by the company are invalid, while the petitioner has maintained that the certificate relied upon by it satisfies the tender conditions. The court said the validity of the certificate and the authority of the officer who countersigned it would be examined after the respondents file their replies.
The court observed that stopping the process at this stage would not be in the public interest because both technical and financial bids had already been opened and the successful bidder had been identified. It clarified, however, that its observations were limited to the request for interim relief and did not constitute a final decision on the merits of the challenge.
The question of interim relief may be reconsidered after the successful bidder is impleaded. The court also stated that its directions could be modified if necessary, and noted that the order remains open to challenge through a writ appeal.
