Telangana HC Directs School Education Department to Enquire into KGBV Bunker Bed Tender After Vigilance Commission Forwards Complaint
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka disposed of a writ petition challenging inaction on a vigilance complaint over alleged price escalation in a Rs 130-crore bunker bed tender for Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas, directing the Secretary, School Education Department to conduct a detailed enquiry within a reasonable period.
The High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana, on 1 May 2026, disposed of a writ petition filed by Peddi Sudershan Reddy, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and former Chairman of the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. The petition complained that the State Vigilance Commission and the Ministry of Finance had failed to act on a representation dated 18 December 2025 seeking registration of a vigilance case over alleged irregularities in a tender for supply, commissioning and installation of 45,360 bunker beds with mattresses and pillows in 252 Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas across Telangana. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, sitting singly, found that the Vigilance Commission had already forwarded the complaint to the School Education Department and directed that department to conduct a detailed enquiry, while keeping an earlier interim order in force.
The Tender and the Alleged Irregularities
Respondent No. 6 issued Bid Notice No. (NIT) 06/SS/2024-25 dated 26 April 2025 inviting bids for the supply, commissioning and installation of bunker beds in KGBV institutions. The tender stipulated a non-extendable completion period of 120 days, prescribed milestones, provided for liquidated damages in case of delay, and expressly prohibited an Original Equipment Manufacturer from participating more than once in the same tender.
Contracts were awarded to Respondents 10 and 11 on 29 May 2025 and 10 June 2025 respectively. Respondent No. 10, declared the L1 bidder, received a contract worth Rs. 1,30,01,99,040 inclusive of 18% GST. Respondent No. 11, the L2 bidder, received a contract worth Rs. 32,50,49,760 inclusive of 18% GST. Respondent No. 12 is the Original Equipment Manufacturer for the bunker beds.
The petitioner contended that Respondents 10 and 11 failed to supply the beds within the 120-day contractual period. Instead of invoking remedies such as termination, forfeiture of security, blacklisting, or calling fresh tenders, the authorities entered into supplementary agreements dated 29 November 2025 with the same contractors. The petitioner alleged that no reasons were recorded in those agreements explaining why the original contracts failed or why fresh tenders were not called.
A further allegation concerned pricing. The petitioner stated that the actual cost of bunker beds to Respondents 10 to 12 ranged between Rs. 15,600 and Rs. 17,200 per unit excluding taxes, whereas the beds were being supplied to the Government at prices exceeding Rs. 33,000 per unit. The petitioner also alleged that Respondent No. 10 was incorporated only in 2022, whereas the tender required bidders to have been in existence for at least seven years, and that both Respondents 10 and 11 relied on the same OEM, Respondent No. 12, in violation of Clause 13(f) of the tender conditions.
On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 18 December 2025 to Respondents 2 and 4 — the Ministry of Finance and the State Vigilance Commission — requesting registration of a vigilance case in respect of an alleged loss to the State exchequer of nearly Rs. 100 crores.
Positions of the Respondents
The Vigilance Commission (Respondent No. 4) filed a counter stating that it functions as an advisory authority to the Government of Telangana. It does not itself conduct investigations or enquiries and does not possess executive powers or independent investigative infrastructure. Upon receiving the petitioner's complaint dated 18 December 2025 along with related petitions dated 30 and 31 December 2025, the Commission forwarded copies to the Secretary, School Education Department, by letter dated 13 January 2026, requesting enquiry and necessary action. The Commission contended that its duty stood discharged upon that forwarding.
Respondents 5 to 7 — the State Government respondents — characterised the writ petition as frivolous and filed with an ulterior motive to stall supply of bunker beds to girl students in KGBV hostels. They contended that the delay in execution occurred because approval of colour codes for the beds was sought from Respondent No. 7 on 21 June 2025 and 24 June 2025, but approval was granted only on 25 November 2025. They argued that the delay could not be attributed to the contractors. They also contended that the price comparison relied upon by the petitioner was with a 2021 supply that did not include transportation, commissioning, installation, supply of pillows and mattresses, or a five-year warranty. A third-party report from TSEWIDC had examined the pricing, and following that report, the contractors agreed to a rate reduction resulting in savings of approximately 7%, amounting to about Rs. 10.72 crores. The supplementary agreements reflected reduced contract values: Respondent No. 10's contract was reduced from Rs. 1,30,01,99,040 to Rs. 1,21,44,14,208, and Respondent No. 11's contract was reduced from Rs. 32,50,49,760 to Rs. 30,36,03,552, owing to a fall in steel prices.
Respondents 5 to 7 also pointed out that the same issues had been raised in Writ Petition No. 38140 of 2025 filed by the Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association. That petition was dismissed on 22 January 2026 after the coordinate bench held that delay in approval of colour codes could not be attributed to Respondents 10 to 12, that Clauses 25 and 26 of the tender permitted extension of time subject to liquidated damages, and that a non-participant could not challenge the supplementary agreement. Writ Appeal No. 411 of 2026 filed against that dismissal was also dismissed on 13 April 2026.
Respondents 10 to 12 contended that the petitioner, not having participated in the tender, had no locus standi to challenge the tender or seek interference with contractual matters. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in National Highways Authority of India v. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway 1 Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 243, and decisions of the Bombay High Court to the same effect. They further stated that by the time the status quo order was passed on 11 December 2025 in WP No. 38140 of 2025, part of the work had already been completed and all units had been manufactured with the Telangana Government logo, making any interference wasteful.
The petitioner, in reply, disputed the Vigilance Commission's characterisation of itself as a purely advisory body. He relied on the Commission's own website and the Vigilance Manual to argue that the Commission is empowered to cause enquiries into transactions where a public servant is suspected of acting for an improper purpose, to call for records from government departments, and to direct the Anti-Corruption Bureau to register a criminal case. He contended that forwarding the complaint to the School Education Department itself demonstrated that the Commission had formed an opinion that an enquiry was necessary, and that the Commission's responsibility did not cease at that point.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Bheemapaka identified the primary grievance as the alleged failure of Respondent No. 4 to act on the representation dated 18 December 2025. The court found that this grievance had been substantially addressed: the Vigilance Commission had examined the complaint and forwarded it to the Secretary, School Education Department, by letter dated 13 January 2026. The forwarding letter, reproduced in the order, directed the School Education Department to conduct enquiry and take necessary action, and requested acknowledgement of receipt.
The court held that once the complaint had been forwarded to the appropriate department for enquiry, the process contemplated under the administrative framework governing vigilance matters stood initiated. In those circumstances, the court observed, its role under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. The court reiterated the settled position that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is primarily intended to ensure that statutory authorities act within the bounds of their powers and discharge their duties in accordance with law. Courts ordinarily do not issue directions where the grievance has already been addressed or where the statutory mechanism has already been set in motion.
On the petitioner's argument that the Vigilance Commission ought to have taken a more proactive supervisory role, the court accepted the Commission's explanation of its institutional framework and held that it could not be said that the Commission had failed to discharge its duties.
The court also addressed the attempt by the petitioner to widen the scope of the proceedings through interlocutory applications. The petitioner's main prayer was limited to seeking consideration of the representation dated 18 December 2025 and registration of a vigilance complaint. Through I.A. No. 1 of 2026, however, the petitioner sought to restrain Respondents from supplying bunker beds to girl students in KGBV hostels. The court held that interlocutory applications cannot be used as a device to substantially transform the nature of the proceedings or introduce entirely new causes of action, and that the relief in a writ petition must be determined primarily on the basis of the pleadings and the prayer clause in the main petition.
The court noted that the issues relating to alleged irregularities in the tender process and the execution of supplementary agreements had already been the subject matter of WP No. 38140 of 2025, which was dismissed on 22 January 2026, and that Writ Appeal No. 411 of 2026 against that dismissal was also dismissed on 13 April 2026. The court observed that in matters relating to public procurement and contractual arrangements entered into by the State or its instrumentalities, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited, and courts ordinarily refrain from interfering unless the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality or violation of statutory provisions. The present writ petition, the court noted, did not call upon it to examine the legality of the tender process, as the limited grievance was non-consideration of the representation.
Order
The court directed Respondent No. 5 — the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Government of Telangana — to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter within a reasonable period and take necessary action. The court specified that the interim order dated 23 January 2026 would prevail until then. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications were closed.