Disposed¶102

M/S Kapil Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025WP/100213/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tender award after expiry of 90-day validity; Rule 22(3) Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules 2000; 93 days lapse; work order anti-dated allegation; Karnataka Public Procurement Portal non-posting; Section 7 and Section 13 KTPP Act 1999; Tender Scrutiny Committee Chairman Deputy Commissioner Ballari affidavit; impleadment of successful bidder; writ disposed infructuous efflux of time; liberty to State for fresh action; GM-TEN Dharwad bench.

What did the court decide?

None on merits. Petition disposed as infructuous due to efflux of time; liberty reserved to the State to take action in accordance with law. ¶102

M/S Kapil Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on merits. Petition disposed as infructuous due to efflux of time; liberty reserved to the State to take action in accordance with law.

¶102

Issue for consideration

Whether the tender evaluation/award and work order (said to have issued on 19.12.2024, alleged to be anti-dated) breached Rule 22 sub-rule (3) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 by exceeding the 90-day tender validity period, 93 days reportedly elapsing without action. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

In the interim order dated 15.01.2025 the Court held that Rule 22 sub-rule (3) mandates completion of the tender process within an outer limit of 91 days of the notification; with 93 days elapsed and nothing done, it recorded gross violation of the Rule and stayed the order dated 12.09.2024. At final disposal the Court expressly declined to delve into the observations made in the interim orders, leaving this finding unexamined.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

As the term of the tender was already over, the Court did not probe the veracity of the affidavits or the interim-order observations; what remained was further action by the respondents, either to issue a fresh tender or otherwise.

¶95-96

Key takeaways

The petition was disposed of as having rendered infructuous due to efflux of time, with liberty reserved to the State to take action in accordance with law on the issue; the certiorari and mandamus prayers were not answered on merits.ratio¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Dharwad), Justice M. Nagaprasanna — W.P. No.100213/2025 (GM-TEN), disposed 16.10.2025 as infructuous due to efflux of time. Petitioner M/s Kapil Enterprises challenged (i) order dated 18.07.2023 (No.MWD 265 MDS 2023, Annexure-A) and (ii) e-procurement tender notification dated 12.09.2024 (No.AaKaeBa/Aa.Saa.Te/CR-10/2024-25, Annexure-B), whereby the tender was sought to be awarded to respondent 5 (National Federation of Farmers Procurements Processing and Retiling Cooperatives of India Ltd.), later impleaded via I.A.No.2/2025. Alleged illegalities: award beyond the 90-day tender validity contrary to Rule 22(3) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (93 days elapsed; work order of 19.12.2024 alleged anti-dated), and non-use/non-reflection on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal contrary to Sections 7 and 13 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999. Interim stay followed a recorded finding of gross Rule 22(3) violation (15.01.2025); the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary was twice directed to affidavit on the systemic practice of issuing work orders only at/near expiry of validity. With the tender term expired, the merits were left unexamined and liberty reserved to the State to act in accordance with law.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13991 WP No. 100213 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100213 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S. KAPIL ENTERPRISES, SURRADDI HALLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 528, R/BY ITS PROPRIETOR, VEENA G.S., FIRM REGISTERED UNDER VAT/ GST ACT, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, MINORITIES WELFARE, HAJ AND WAQF DEPARTMENT,

¶11

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MINORITIES, MOULANA ABDUL KALAM AZAD BHAVAN, 16C, MILLERS TANK BED ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 052.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATION ROAD, BSNL COLONY, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI – 583 101.

¶14

RAKESH S HARIHAR

¶15

Digitally signed byRAKESH S HARIHARLocation: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.10.18 12:17:03+0530

¶16

THE DISTRICT OFFICER, MINORITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MOULANA AZAD BHAVAN, NEAR JD RANGAMANDIRA, BALLARI – 583 101.

¶17

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FARMERS PROCUREMENTS PROCESSING AND RETILING COOPERATIVES OF INDIA LTD., BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY VINODKUMAR JHA S/O. RAM NARAYA JHA,

¶18

AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. D.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13991 WP No. 100213 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.07.2023, BEARING NO.MWD 265 MDS 2023, ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED E-PROCUREMENT TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 12.09.2024, BEARING NO.AAKAEBA/ AA.SAA.TE/CR-10/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO INVITE FRESH TENDER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶28

The petitioner is before this court seeking the

¶29

following prayer:

¶30

1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.07.2023, bearing no. MWD 265 MDS 2023, issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-A, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned E-procurement tender notification dated 12.09.2024, bearing No.AaKaeBa/Aa.Saa.Te/CR-10/2024-25 issued by the 4^th respondent vide Annexure-B, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

3. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to invite fresh tender, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13991 WP No. 100213 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

4. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

Owing to the submission of the petitioner, this

¶38

Court on 15.01.2025 had passed the following order:

¶39

Learned counsel Shri B.M. Irishad Ahmed appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court on 27.12.2024 had passed the following:

¶40

“Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve three sets of copies on the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Rule 22 of Sub Rule (3) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000, the tender notification has lapsed. Inspite of that the respondents are making efforts to award the tender.

¶43

If the respondents award tender pursuant to that tender notification vide Annexure – A, the same shall be subject to result of this writ petition.

¶44

List this matter on 09.01.2025.”

¶45

The contention of the petitioner is that, work order is issued to the successful bidder in blatant violation of sub Rule 3 of Rule 22 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000. Learned counsel would submit that the tender had already lapsed in terms of the aforesaid Rule, as 93 days no action was taken pursuant to the tender notification. It is only after the passage of the order dated 27.12.2024, the State appears to have woken up and issued a work order on 19.12.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work orders is anti dated.

¶46

Be that as it may. Sub Rule 3 of Rule 22 mandates completion of the tender process of tender on the issuance of notification within an outer limit of 91 days. Admittedly 93 days nothing has happened in the case at hand. Therefore there is gross violation of the Rule. In that light,

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13991 WP No. 100213 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

there shall be an interim order of stay of the order dated 12.09.2024, till the next date of hearing.

¶51

The petitioner is directed to implead the person to whom the work order is issued as a party respondent to these proceedings forthwith.

¶52

Tag this petition along with W.P.No.100218/2025.

¶53

List this matter on 14.02.2025 in the fresh matters list.

¶54

Again on 19.02.2025 the Court passed the following order:

¶55

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 18.07.2023 and a subsequent order dated 12.09.2024, by which the tender is sought to be awarded to the 5^th respondent.

¶56

2. The grounds urged by the petitioner, is violation of Sections 7 & 13 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 which projects several illegalities. It is his pointed submission that, all the transactions with regard to the tender should take place only on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal in terms of Section 7 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999. Section 7 reads as follows:

¶57

“7. The Karnataka Public Procurement Portal.- (1) The State Government shall set up and maintain a State Public Procurement Portal accessible to the public for posting and exhibiting matters relating to public procurement.

¶58

(2) Every procurement under this Act shall be carried out through the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal .

¶59

(3) Each procuring entity shall cause the procurement related information to be exhibited as required under this Act or the rules made there under on the portal referred to in subsection(1).

¶60

(4) Each procuring entity shall carry out Contract execution Management in the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal with effect from such date and in such department as may be notified b the Government.”

¶61

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13991 WP No. 100213 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

3. The other illegality is violation of Section 13 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999. Section 13 reads as follows:

¶64

“13. Acceptance of Tender; The Tender Accepting Authority shall, after following such procedure as may be prescribed pass order accepting the tender and shall communicate the information relating to acceptances of tender together with a comparative analysis and reasons for accepting of tender to the procurement entity and on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal.

¶65

Provide that where the Tender Accepting Authority consists of signal officer who is due to retire within the next six months, from the date fixed for the acceptance for tender, he shall not act to accept the tender without obtaining prior approval of the Procurement Entity.

¶66

Provide further that subject to such general or special order as may be issued by the Government from time to time, the Tender Accepting Authority may before passing order accepting a tender negotiate with lowest tendered.”

¶67

4. Therefore the acceptance of tender after due analysis should be on the Public Procurement Portal as found in Section 7 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999.

¶68

5. The learned counsel projects certain illegalities in the Rules as well. Rule 22 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000, which is said to be violated, reads as follows:

¶69

“22. Time taken for evaluation and extension of tender validity(1) The evaluation of tenders and award of contract shall be complied, as far as possible within the period for which the tenders are held valid.

¶70

(2) The Tender Accepting Authority shall seek extension of the validity of tenders from the tenders for the completion of evaluation, if it is not completed within the validity period of tender.

¶71

(3) In case the evaluation of tenders and award of contract is not completed within extended period all the tenders shall be deemed to have become invalid and fresh tenders may be called for.”

¶72

6. In terms of Rule 22, the evaluation of tenders and award of contract should be completed as far as possible, within a period for which the tenders are held valid.

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13991 WP No. 100213 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

7. In the case at hand, the tenders are valid for 90 days. Therefore the tender could not have been accepted on the 91^st day even, is his submission.

¶77

8. The Tender Scrutiny Committee comprises of the Deputy Commissioner and other Officers. It is ununderstandable as to how the Deputy Commissioner of a District, who is the Chairman of the Tender Scrutiny Committee, is unaware of Sections 7 and 13, as the web portal even today depicts the tender to be pending. If tender has been awarded to the 5^th respondent, it should have at the outset been reflected in the portal. This is a mandate of the Statute under Sections 7 and 13. There are plethora of cases, filed before this Court contending that the tender is issued only after the expiry of 90 days, therefore it is in violation of Rule 22.

¶78

9. It again shocks as to why the Tender Scrutiny Committee would keep quiet for 90 long days after issuance of tender and receipt of the applications and issue the work order on the 91^st day to be successful tenderers. These things are to be steered clear by the Chairman of the Tender Scrutiny Committee. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary district shall now file an affidavit before the Court as to why violations are deliberately made in these tenders, without following the mandate of Sections 7 and 13 or any justification for not following, by the next date.

¶79

10. List matter on 24.02.2025 in the fresh

¶80

matters list.

¶81

11. Interim order subsisting will continue to the next date of hearing.

¶82

4. On 24.02.2025 the following order:

¶83

The Deputy Commissioner has filed an affidavit pursuant to the order dated 19.02.2025. The affidavit answers everything except what is contained in paragraph No.8. Paragraph No.8 of the order read as follow:

¶84

“8. The Tender Scrutiny Committee comprises of the Deputy Commissioner and other Officers. It is ununderstandable as to how the Deputy Commissioner of a District, who is the Chairman of the Tender Scrutiny Committee, is unaware of Sections 7 and 13, as the web

¶85

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13991 WP No. 100213 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

portal even today depicts the tender to be pending. If tender has been awarded to the 5^th respondent, it should have at the outset been reflected in the portal. This is a mandate of the Statute under Sections 7 and 13. There are plethora of cases, filed before this Court contending that the tender is issued only after the expiry of 90 days, therefore it is in violation of Rule 22.”

¶88

In the light of paragraph No.8, the Deputy Commissioner shall now file an appropriate affidavit as to why the every case is kept pending for 90 days and only nearing or after the expiry of 90 days, the work order is issued. This has created huge litigation before this Court. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner shall answer this and file appropriate affidavit by the next date of hearing.

¶89

Learned counsel Shri Dinesh M.Kulkarni has filed an application in I.A. No.2/2025 seeking his impleadment into the proceedings on the score that he is the successful bidder and has not been made a party to this proceeding as a proper and necessary party.

¶90

Therefore, for the reason indicated in the affidavit accompanying the application and being satisfied with the same, the impleading application is allowed and the proposed 5^th respondent is permitted to come on record.

¶91

The counsel for the petitioner to amend the cause title and to file the amended cause title forthwith.

¶92

Heard in part.

¶93

List the matter on 06.03.2025 at 4:00 p.m. for further hearing.

¶94

5. Affidavits have been filed in justification of the

¶95

veracity of the affidavit need not be gone into the case at hand, as the term of tender is already over and what

¶96

remains is further action at the hands of the respondent either to issue a fresh tender or otherwise. In the light of