Chanakya Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7751 WP No. 100686 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 100686 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHANAKYA ENTERPRISES, GROUND FLOOR, D.NO.1969/1, CHANAKYA NILAYA, S.S. LAYOUT, ’B’ BLOCK, NEAR EDU ASIA SCHOOL, DAVANAGERE-577 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. SHAMASUNDAR ANANTH RAO GANGOJI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL & SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE OF BACKWARD CLASSES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOTE-587103.

¶15

DISTRICT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT FOR WELFARE OF BACKWARD CLASSES, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, R.NO.-101, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587103.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7751 WP No. 100686 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

(a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE UNNUMBERED TENDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 16/01/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶22

(b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO ISSUE WORK ORDER TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE TENDER DATED 23/07/2024 BEARING NO. GHIMVAKAEBAA/LEKKA/AAHARATENDER/ CR/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-C).

¶23

(c) AWARD COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶27

The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the unnumbered tender issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 16.01.2025 vide Annexure-H and for issuance of the writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to issue work order to the petitioner as per the tender dated 23.07.2024 and for other consequential reliefs.

¶28

Petitioner is in the business of supply of food materials, cereals, etc, for the past several years and supplying to several departments at the competitive rates. On a tender being floated by respondent No.1 from

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7751 WP No. 100686 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

various suppliers like that of the petitioner throughout the State, tender was called for each Taluka. The petitioner

¶32

applied for the said tender floated by the 1^st respondent.

¶33

After finalizing of the tender, the petitioner was L-

¶34

1 in the final fray amongst three bidders. This being the state of affairs, petitioner was waiting for the work order to be issued, but to his shock and surprise, respondents got issued a second call and not issued the work order to the petitioner, due to which, petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.31932/2024(GM-TEN) for issuance of work order. An order of status quo was granted and subsequently, disposed off the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, respondents issued one more tender, modifying the earlier value of the tender. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same is before this Court questioning the said tender modifying the value of the tender.

¶35

It was contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents have called in the second

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7751 WP No. 100686 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

tender by causing modification, which is vivolative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Though, the petitioner was L-1 without any rhyme or reason they have floated another tender, thereby causing grave hardship and injuries to the petitioner in blatant violation of the constitutional safeguards. Therefore, he contends that the fresh tender issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-H require to be quashed and the petitioner be awarded work order as being L-1.

¶39

Per Contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent/State filed detailed statement of objections primarily contending that the writ petition itself is not maintainable on several grounds. Firstly on the ground that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, the appeal would lie to the appellate authority, secondly, on the ground of suppression of material facts and thirdly, on the ground that floating or calling for tender or modification of the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7751 WP No. 100686 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

tender is within the domain of the tender issuing authority and this Court cannot intervene in the course of judicial review thereby nullifying the action of the tender issuing authority/State.

¶43

Learned AGA relies upon a reported Judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition no.202094/2024 in the case of M/s. Shiv Shakti Dal Industries vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in MANU/KA/4126/2024 to contend that the subject matter of the writ petition is being decided exhaustively in the said reported Judgment, which has been subsequently followed by this Court in several other Judgments. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶44

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent/State. Having perused the petition papers and judgment in the case of Shiv Shakti

¶45

Dal Industries mentioned supra, it is apparently seen that in the aforesaid case, this Court has exhaustively considered all the contentions with regard to floating of

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7751 WP No. 100686 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

tender by tender issuing authority. The issue of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether there is any illegality or infirmity of the tender or its process requiring interference at the hands of this Court. After carefully going through the said Judgment in the case of

¶49

Shiv Shakti Dal Industries, this Court is of the opinion that issue raised in this petition is substantially answered in the judgment herein stated supra. Under the circumstances, I am in agreement with the learned AGA that the issue in this matter is covered by the Judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of case Shiv

¶50

Shakti Dal Industries. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶51

ORDER

¶52

Petition is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶54

CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Chanakya Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanakya Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Saniya Agency Vs Union Bank of India

Shivappa S/O Basappa Kendur Vs Superintendent of Police (S.P)

The Seerat Committee, Chikodi Vs Akhtar Hussein Mohammadhussein Sayyad

Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd, Vs the Commissioner

Sri Shakti Trading Company Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishnaji S/O Balaji Salunke Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka