Disposed¶34

M/S Himagiri Sree Electricals v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2025WP/27179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), W.P. No. 27179 of 2024 (GM-TEN), decided 14-03-2025 by Justice M.Nagaprasanna. Challenge to KIADB Tender Notification dated 20-09-2024 (Tender No. KIADB/2024-25/EL/WORK.INDENT159) for street-light reconditioning and maintenance at Hassan Growth Centre and industrial areas of Hassan and Chikkamagaluru districts, seeking compliance with KTPP Act, 2000; impugned tender withdrawn/recalled during pendency per respondents' memo; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 disposed as infructuous; petitioner's rights for future tenders expressly kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed as infructuous upon withdrawal/recall of the impugned tender, with an express observation that all rights of the petitioner would remain open. ¶34

M/S Himagiri Sree Electricals Vs Karnataka… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed as infructuous upon withdrawal/recall of the impugned tender, with an express observation that all rights of the petitioner would remain open.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tender Notification dated 20.09.2024 (Tender No. KIADB/2024-25/EL/WORK.INDENT159) issued by Respondent No.2 should be set aside and recalled in compliance with the KTPP Act, 2000, and whether a separate tender document for electrical works as prime contractor should be drawn up. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

In view of the memo filed by the respondents' counsel showing that the impugned tender has been withdrawn or recalled, the petition is rendered infructuous.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

All rights of the petitioner shall remain open; the petitioner is not precluded from participating in future tenders.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-TEN) No. 27179 of 2024, decided 14-03-2025 by Justice M.Nagaprasanna, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. M/s. Himagiri Sree Electricals challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Tender Notification dated 20-09-2024 / Tender No. KIADB/2024-25/EL/WORK.INDENT159 issued by Respondent No.2 (The Chief Engineer - 1, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board) through the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal for reconditioning and maintenance of street lights at Hassan Growth Centre, Sub Layouts, B. Kathihalli, Holenarasipura, Thimmanahalli, Textile and Pharma SEZ Industrial Areas of Hassan District and Amble Industrial Area of Chikkamagaluru District, seeking recall of the tender in compliance with the KTPP Act, 2000 and a separate tender document for electrical works as prime contractor. Before orders, the respondents' counsel filed a memo appending a document depicting that the impugned tender had since been withdrawn or recalled; the Court held the petition rendered infructuous, observed that all rights of the petitioner would remain open (so the petitioner is not precluded from participating in future tenders), and ordered accordingly.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:10613 WP No. 27179 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 27179 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. HIMAGIRI SREE ELECTRICALS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.77, 3RD CROSS, VITTAL NAGAR, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. DR. SREEDHARA.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. AJAY KADKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. PRIYANKA J. SREDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 49, EAST WING, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER - 1, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 49, EAST WING, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:10613 WP No. 27179 of 2024

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOTO SET ASIDE THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 20-09-2024 AND TENDER NO. KIADB/2024-25/EL/WORK.INDENT159 IN THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PORTAL ISSUED BY R2 ANNEXURE-A FOR WORK OF RECONDITIONING AND MAINTENANCE OF STREET LIGHTS AT HASSAN GROWTH CENTRE, SUB LAYOUTS, B. KATHIHALLI, HOLENARASIPURA, THIMMANAHALLI, TEXTILE AND PHARMA SEZ INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF HASSAN DISTRICT AND AMBLE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶24

prayers:

¶25

"a) To set aside the Tender Notification dated 20.09.2024 and Tender No.KIADB/202425/EL/WORK_INDENT159 in the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal issued by Respondent No.2 ANNEXURE-A for work of reconditioning and maintenance of street lights at Hassan Growth Centre, Sub layouts, B. Kathihallim Holenarasipura, Thimmanahalli, Textile & Pharma SEZ Industrial Areas of Hassan District and Amble Industrial Area of Chikkamagaluru District; and

¶26

b) To direct the Respondent No.1 & 2 to recall the Tender Notification in compliance with the provisions of KTPP Act, 2000 ensuring justice, fairness and equality of all the participants; and

¶27

c) To direct the Respondent No.1 & 2 to draft a separate tender document for electrical works as a prime contractor in accordance with provisions of the KTPP Act, 2000; and

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:10613 WP No. 27179 of 2024

¶30

d) Pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶31

Shri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel

¶32

representing the respondents has filed a memo appending to it a document which depicts that impugned tender has since been withdrawn or recalled, in that light, the petition is rendered infructuous.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that they should not be precluded from participating in future tenders. It is understandable why such an apprehension is even generated by the petitioner. It is needless to observe that all rights of the petitioner would remain open.

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶36

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

M/S Himagiri Sree Electricals v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Himagiri Sree Electricals v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Anushka Constructions Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

R Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Annappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Pavan Vs State of Karnataka

Haseena Taj Vs State of Karnataka

The Regional Manager Vs Mahesh R