R&B acts tough

Issues show cause notice to Team One India over noncompliance, delays in High Court project

■    Structural drawings for the Main HC Block pending even after over eight months

■    MEP drawings for multiple blocks delayed by 4–6 months and still pending

■   Submission of incomplete foundation and structural drawings, preventing commen-cement of work

■    Improper basement designs forced conversion of 1.81 lakh sq ft into parking space after work began

■    Incomplete Design Basis Report (DBR) for the Main Court Block lacking SBC details

■    Alleged violation of National Building Code (NBC) 2016 and Fire Department norms in basement planning

■    Failure to respond to queries and observations raised by the Independent Engineer.

■    Non submission of clarifications on structural DBR, excavation clearance, ETABS models, and quantity variations

■    Project execution reportedly reaching a “virtual standstill” due to non-availability of drawings

metro india news  I hyderabad

The ambitious New Telangana High Court Building Complex at Rajendranagar, envisioned as a landmark judicial infrastructure project for the state, has come under scrutiny following serious allegations against the appointed architectural and project consultancy firm, Team One India Private Limited.

The Roads and Buildings Department issued a final notice to the Hyderabad based consultancy, citing repeated delays, discrepancies in technical submissions, non adherence to timelines, and failure to respond to official communications. The notice, issued on May 20, 2026 by Chief Engineer (R and B) G Rajeshwar Reddy, paints a troubling picture of the status of the prestigious project.

Team One India Pvt Ltd, a reputed architecture and project management company established in 1992, had been selected through a national design competition for the mega High Court complex.

The firm was formally awarded the consultancy contract under Agreement No. 05/2024 to provide architectural, structural, landscaping, MEP, supervision, project management, and tender documentation services for the project. However, the government now alleges that despite repeated reminders, notices, and review meetings, the consultancy failed to deliver critical drawings and technical inputs within the committed timelines, thereby affecting the overall execution schedule of the project.

Major delays in drawings and technical deliverables

One of the most serious concerns flagged by the R and B Department pertains to abnormal delays in submission of architectural, structural, and MEP drawings. According to the notice, structural drawings for all floors of the Main High Court Block are still pending even after more than eight months beyond the stipulated schedule mentioned in the agreement. Architectural drawings for several blocks were reportedly delayed by nearly ten months, while structural drawings for various components witnessed delays of around eight months. MEP drawings for multiple blocks are yet to be furnished, with delays ranging between four and six months beyond the committed timelines.

Officials noted that the delays have significantly impacted the project execution schedule and hampered commencement of several major structural works at the site. The department observed that despite several communications from Executive Engineers and repeated notices issued between December 2025 and May 2026, there was no satisfactory improvement in performance by the consultancy firm. The notice specifically mentions that the available project execution period is shrinking rapidly and completion within the committed deadline is now at serious risk.

The issue gained further significance because the Hon’ble Chief Minister had already publicly announced timelines for completion during the Bhumi Pooja of Zone II works. However, according to the department, the firm failed to honor commitments made during review meetings.

During a Building Committee meeting of Hon’ble Judges held on April 24, 2026, Team One India reportedly assured officials that Main Court Block foundation drawings would be submitted by April 30 and remaining structural drawings by May 11. Yet, even partial drawings furnished later allegedly contained missing details, preventing commencement of work. The balance drawings are still pending, the notice states.

Discrepancies in safe bearing capacity and design concerns

A major red flag highlighted in the notice relates to inconsistencies in determination of Safe Bearing Capacity (SBC), a critical engineering parameter required for structural stability. The department stated that it was the responsibility of the consultant to establish valid SBC values at the DPR stage before releasing structural designs. However, the consultancy allegedly used varying SBC values for different blocks without adequate justification.

The notice contains a detailed table showing different SBC values adopted for various buildings. For instance, the Administrative I Block was assigned an SBC value of 45 tonnes per square metre, Administrative II and Advocate General Blocks were assigned 40 tonnes, Public Parking and Public Amenities blocks were given 50 tonnes, while the Main Court Block was assigned as high as 70 tonnes per square metre. Officials argued that such inconsistencies raised serious technical concerns and caused confusion during project execution.

The department further alleged that Team One India began corresponding on SBC related issues only at an advanced stage after works had already commenced, which officials viewed as a failure in establishing valid design parameters during the DPR stage itself.

The notice stated that the original copy of SBC pertaining to the Main Court Block had still not been submitted despite repeated discussions and correspondence. Similarly, the Design Basis Report relating to the Main Court Block was allegedly incomplete and lacked proper mention of SBC details.

Another serious concern raised by officials involved alleged non adherence to provisions of the National Building Code 2016 for basement floors. According to the department, basement plans for Administrative Blocks, Advocate General Block, and Advocate Chambers included office spaces and record rooms in basement areas, which was reportedly contrary to Fire Department norms and NBC guidelines. 

Due to this alleged improper planning, approximately 1.81 lakh square feet of basement area later had to be converted into parking space after nearly eight months of work commencement, resulting in substantial additional financial implications for the project.

Non response to queries and communications

The notice also accuses the consultancy firm of failing to respond to critical observations raised by the Independent Engineer regarding the Main Court Block. Several communications seeking clarifications on structural DBR, excavation clearance, architectural drawings, structural drawings, and ETABS models allegedly remained unanswered. Officials noted that because of these non responses, grounding of the Main Court Block itself could not begin.

In addition, the Executive Engineer had reportedly sought justification for abnormal increases in steel and concrete quantities between Admin II and Admin Extension Blocks. However, according to the notice, no clarification was submitted by the consultancy despite repeated requests. The department also observed that during weekly review meetings held between December 2025 and May 2026, the consultancy repeatedly assured timely submission of drawings, but failed to fulfill those assurances.

The department further noted that the delays resulted in disruption of sequencing of works, idling of manpower and machinery, cost escalation, and repeated replanning during execution. Construction agencies reportedly sought extension of milestones and demobilisation of manpower due to non availability of drawings on time. Officials described the situation as embarrassing for the department because contractors could not proceed according to schedule.

Government warns of contract termination and penalties

Taking serious note of the lapses, the R and B Department has sought a detailed explanation from Team One India Pvt Ltd within three days from receipt of the notice. The department has questioned why the consultancy agreement should not be terminated under relevant clauses of the contract for non performance, breach of obligations, and failure to adhere to project schedules despite being given sufficient opportunities and reasonable time for compliance.

The notice also asks why additional financial implications arising out of conversion of PT slabs to non PT slabs and redesign of basement areas should not be treated as contractual violations. Officials further questioned why penalties should not be imposed for causing virtual standstill of the project due to failure in submission of drawings within stipulated timelines.

The final warning states that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation within the stipulated period would result in further action under the terms and conditions of the agreement without any additional notice.