Sri Shiradi Sai Provision Stores Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Shiradi Sai Provision Stores Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09.06.2025 barring the petitioner from the re-tender operates as blacklisting/debarring the petitioner, with consequences that could prevent it from participating in other tenders. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The Court took the view that the second respondent's counsel's on-instructions clarification - that the exclusion from the re-tender merely gives effect to the tender stipulation and is not a decision contemplated under Section 14A of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 - suffices to meet the petitioner's grievance, including the apprehension of blacklisting/debarment.

Key takeaways

Recording that observation, the Court disposed of the petition; the prayers to quash the impugned order, to release the forfeited EMD and to permit participation in future tenders were not separately granted.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sri Shiradi Sai Provision Stores (through its proprietor Sri Santosh), a tenderer in a tender floated by the second respondent (Executive Director, Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society) for procurement of food and other items. The tender stipulated that bids below 90% of the tender value - even if due to typographical error - would attract forfeiture of EMD and a bar on re-participation in the re-tender; the petitioner's bid was below 90% by a small margin, and by order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure-C) the petitioner was stipulated to be unable to participate in the re-tender; the forfeited EMD was Rs. 24,69,390/-. The petitioner apprehended that the order operated as blacklisting/debarment extending to other tenders, and prayed for quashing of the order, release of the EMD and liberty to participate in future tenders. Counsel for the second respondent (Sri C Srinivasa) submitted on instructions that the decision merely gives effect to the stipulation against re-participation and is not a decision contemplated under Section 14A of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999. The Court (B M Shyam Prasad, J.) took the view that this clarification suffices for the petitioner's grievance and, while so observing, disposed of the petition; the prayers were not granted.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35913 WP No. 27675 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 27675 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI SHIRADI SAI PROVISION STORES HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE, AT NO. 1056, NEAR MUNICIPAL COLLEGE, M G ROAD, CHICKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR 562 101 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SANTOSH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PROPRIETORSHIP ACT 2013.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35913 WP No. 27675 of 2025

HC-KAR

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU 560001.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, BANGALORE, NO. 8, 6^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 560052.

DIRECTOR SCHEDULED CASTES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NO. 34, 1^ST FLOOR, LOTUS TOWERS, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

COMMISSIONER

BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NO. 16/D,

3^RD FLOOR, DEVRAJ URS BHAVAN, MILLERS TANK BUNK ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU 560001.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,

5^TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING,

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35913 WP No. 27675 of 2025

HC-KAR

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1, R3, R4 AND R5)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 TO 5 AT ANNX-C INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE FORFEITED EMD AMOUNT OF RS. 24,69,390/-; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO PARTICIPATE IN FUTURE TENDERS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35913 WP No. 27675 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who has participated in the tender floated by the second respondent for procurement of food and other items, is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 09.06.2025 [Annexure-C] which stipulates that the petitioner cannot participate in the re-tender . The second respondent because of disputes raised by the petitioner has re-notified tender. This Court, before adverting to the petitioner's grievance, must record the material circumstances preceding the impugned decision.

It is undisputed that the second respondent has floated the tender stipulating that the bidders should not offer less than 90% of the tender value and if the bidders offer any value lesser than 90% of the value, even for reasons such as typographical error, certain consequences would be. The consequence, apart from the forfeiture of the EMD, is the stipulation that the

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35913 WP No. 27675 of 2025

HC-KAR

Tenderer cannot re-participate in the re-tender . It is undisputed that the petitioner has offered below 90%, though by a small margin, which is also covered by the stipulation as aforesaid.

Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, the learned

counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's grievance with this decision stems from the apprehension that it operates as

blacklisting/debarring the petitioner resulting in consequences that could prevent the petitioner from participating in other tenders. In response, Sri C Srinivasa, the learned counsel for the second respondent, on instructions, submits that the decision is to give effect to the stipulation not to participate in the tender and it is not a decision that is contemplated under Section 14A of the Karnataka

Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999. This Court is of the view that the afore must suffice

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:35913 WP No. 27675 of 2025

HC-KAR

insofar as the petitioner's grievance. While so observing, the petition stands disposed of.

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-