KGBV Bunker Beds Tender: Telangana HC Directs School Education Dept To Conduct Enquiry Into Ex-MLA's Complaint On Alleged Irregularities

The Telangana High Court directed the School Education Department to conduct a detailed enquiry into a complaint alleging irregularities and loss to the State exchequer in relation to a tender for supply, commissioning and installation of bunker beds with mattresses and pillows in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs). [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 85] 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed:

“At this stage, it is also necessary to emphasize that writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to supervise or micro-manage the manner in which an administrative enquiry is to be conducted once the competent authority has already initiated the process. The Court is also conscious of the fact that Petitioner has raised several allegations regarding irregularities in the tender process, alleged price escalation and alleged loss to the public exchequer. However, those issues are not directly the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.”

The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by former MLA and former Chairman of Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Peddi Sudershan Reddy, alleging inaction on his representation dated 18.12.2025 seeking registration of a vigilance case in connection with the KGBV bunker beds tender.

The petitioner alleged that the tender was issued for supply, commissioning and installation of 45,360 bunker beds with mattresses and pillows in 252 KGBVs in Telangana. According to him, the tender involved expenditure of “hundreds of crores of rupees of public funds” and required strict adherence to transparency, fairness and tender conditions.

It was contended that the tender prescribed a non-extendable completion period of 120 days and provided for liquidated damages in case of delay. However, Respondents 10 and 11, who were awarded contracts on 29.05.2025, allegedly failed to supply the bunker beds within the stipulated period.

The petitioner alleged that instead of invoking contractual remedies such as termination, forfeiture of security, blacklisting or fresh tendering, the authorities entered into supplementary agreements dated 29.11.2025 for the same quantity of bunker beds. He contended that this “effectively rewarded” the contractors despite their failure to perform within time.

It was further alleged that Respondents 10 and 11, who were declared L1 and L2 bidders, relied on the same Original Equipment Manufacturer, Respondent No.12, thereby enabling the same manufacturer to “effectively participate twice” in the tender. The petitioner also alleged that Respondent No.10 was incorporated only in 2022, whereas the tender required the bidder to have been in existence for at least seven years.

The petitioner claimed that similar bunker beds had earlier been supplied to other Government departments at rates as low as Rs.15,300 per unit, whereas in the present tender, the rates exceeded Rs.33,000 per unit. According to him, this resulted in “massive and avoidable financial loss” to the State exchequer.

Respondent No.4, the Vigilance Commission, stated that it functions as an advisory authority and does not itself conduct investigations. It submitted that on receipt of the petitioner's complaint dated 18.12.2025, along with related petitions dated 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025, it forwarded the same to the Secretary, School Education Department, through letter dated 13.01.2026 for conducting enquiry and taking necessary action.

Respondents 5 to 7 opposed the petition, contending that it was filed with an ulterior motive to stall a welfare measure intended for girl students residing in KGBV hostels. They submitted that the allegations of financial loss were incorrect and that the tender process was conducted in a transparent manner.

They further contended that similar issues had already been raised in W.P. No.38140 of 2025, which was dismissed on 22.01.2026. It was stated that the petitioner, who did not participate in the tender process, had no locus to question extension of time granted through supplementary agreements.

Respondents 10 to 12 also submitted that the delay was due to late approval of colour codes by the authorities and that the tender conditions permitted extension of time. They stated that after a committee report and reduction of rates due to fall in steel prices, supplementary agreements were entered into, resulting in savings of around Rs.10.72 crores.

The Court noted that the principal relief sought in the writ petition was to declare the alleged inaction of Respondents 2 and 4 on the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2025 as illegal and to direct them to register a vigilance complaint and take action in accordance with law.

Thus, the Court held that the scope of the writ petition was limited to examining whether the competent authorities had failed to consider the representation and whether such alleged inaction warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that the petitioner had projected the matter as involving large-scale irregularities in the KGBV bunker beds tender. However, the writ petition, as framed, did not directly challenge the tender process, award of contracts to Respondents 10 and 11, or the supplementary agreements dated 29.11.2025.

The Court further noted that the petitioner's primary grievance stood “substantially addressed” because the Vigilance Commission had already examined and forwarded the complaint to the School Education Department on 13.01.2026 for enquiry and necessary action.

It observed that once the complaint had been forwarded to the appropriate department for enquiry, “the process contemplated under the administrative framework governing vigilance matters stands initiated” and the role of the Court in such circumstances was limited.

The Court also held that interlocutory applications could not be used to widen the scope of the writ petition.

It observed:

“The attempt made subsequently by Petitioner through interlocutory applications to widen the scope of the proceedings and seek orders restraining execution of the tender or supply of bunker beds cannot alter the nature of the original Writ Petition. It is settled principle of law that the relief sought in a Writ Petition must be determined primarily on the basis of the pleadings and the prayer clause in the main petition.”

The Court also took note of the respondents' submission that the issues relating to alleged irregularities in the tender process and execution of supplementary agreements had earlier been the subject matter of W.P. No.38140 of 2025, which was dismissed on 22.01.2026, and that W.A. No.411 of 2026 against the said order was also dismissed on 13.04.2026.

Accordingly, since the Vigilance Commission had already forwarded the petitioner's complaint to the Secretary, School Education Department, the Court directed Respondent No.5 to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter within a reasonable period and take necessary action.

The Court further directed that the interim order dated 23.01.2026 would prevail till then. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: Peddi Sudershan Reddy v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No.40073 of 2025

Appearance: Sri Avinash Desai, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri TPS Harsha for the Petitioner; Smt. N.V.R. Rajyalakshmi, Standing Counsel for Central Government, for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9; Ms. Uma Devi, Standing Counsel for NABARD; Government Pleader for School Education for Respondent Nos.5 to 7; Sri A. Yadava Reddy, Standing Counsel for TSEWIDC, for Respondent No.13; Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy for Respondent Nos.10 to 12.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 85