Telangana HC Grants BRS Final 3 Weeks to File Counter in Kokapet Land PILs

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparash Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin was hearing separate PILs filed by Good Governance Forum and city-based lawyer A. Venkatarami Reddy. The petitions questioned the allotment of land in Survey Nos. 239 and 240 of Kokapet to BRS for setting up an ‘excellence and human resource development institute’.

The petitioners alleged that the land parcel located in the prime area of ​​Kokapet was allotted for ₹ 3.41 crore even though its market value was around ₹ 550 crore. They argued that the allocation was not for any public benefit but for a political purpose.

On Monday, BRS counsel requested four weeks to file a counter-affidavit. He argued that the petitioners selectively objected to the allocation to BRS without questioning similar allocations to Congress.

The Board observed that BRS had started to look into the issue and had already asked for time several times. Refusing to give four weeks, the court adjourned the case for the next hearing, stating that three weeks was given as final tolerance.

The state government filed counter objections after the Supreme Court gave it a final opportunity in December 2025 to put its stand on record.

Telangana HC Approves KGBV Bunk Agreement, Dismisses Petition Against Mafatlal Industries

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court upheld the government’s contract and agreement with Mafatlal Industries Limited and Trufa Enterprise Private Limited for installation of 45,360 bunk beds 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 some private organizations challenging the state’s decision and the actions of the state project director Samagra Shiksha of Telangana to proceed with the contract.

According to the applicants, article 5 of the tender required the completion of the supply within 120 days from the agreement dated 29 May 2025. Since Mafatlal Industries and other companies were allegedly unable to complete the supplies within this period, the authorities had to organize a new tender instead of making an additional agreement on November 29, 2025, allowing an additional 120 days. They also complained that exorbitant prices favored successful bidders.

Additional solicitor general Tera Rajanikanth Reddy, representing the state, stated that the petitioners did not participate in the tender process initiated by the notification dated April 26, 2025. It was argued that a person who did not participate in the tender process could not object as a person who did not participate in the tender process could not be considered as aggrieved by the decision of the tender authority.

Senior advocates B. Chandrasen Reddy and B. Vamshidhar Reddy of Mafatlal Industries and others stated that a complaint was filed against some institutions on May 27, 2025, alleging exorbitant prices and privileges. Based on this complaint, a committee was formed, investigation was conducted and a report was submitted with the finding that the tender process was conducted fairly and Mafatlal Industries agreed to carry out the work at a modified rate. A saving of seven per cent was achieved, measured at ₹ 10.72 crore.

Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Surepalli Nanda held that the petitioners’ allegations that the authorities favored successful bidders and enabled them to earn exorbitant profits were not supported by any material on record.

The court also reiterated the well-established principle of judicial review in tender matters, observing that the authority writing the tender document is in the best position to understand and appreciate the requirements of the tender document and that this interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court exercising judicial review powers.