Object Technologies v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2026WP/16593/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court; WP No. 16593 of 2026 (GM-TEN); Suraj Govindaraj, J.; decided 12 June 2026; Article 226; Article 14 arbitrariness challenge to tender eligibility criteria (Clause 5.3 and Sl No. 16 (c), (d), (e) of Data Sheet) in Request for Proposal for providing manpower services on outsource basis for Department of Technical Education, Bangalore dated 6 May 2026 (No. DTE/2026-27/Outsource1173); qualification reduced from 60 crores to 29 crores; addendum issued; adequate time assured; writ petition disposed on recorded submissions; no ruling on merits.

What did the court decide?

None in terms of the prayers; the writ petition was disposed of recording the submissions of both parties. ¶¶32

Object Technologies Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28727 WP No. 16593 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16593 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

OBJECT TECHNOLOGIES REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY NO.12/1, ‘MATHRU SHREE’ 25^TH CROSS, 6^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560070

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M V.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 6^TH FLOOR, MS BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560001

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA TANTRIKA SHIKSHANA BHAVANA PALACE ROAD BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON., AAG A/W SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:28727 WP No. 16593 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CRITERIA NAMELY CLAUSE 5.3 AND SL NO. 16 (C), (D) AND (E) OF THE DATA SHEET IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PROVIDING MANPOWER SERVICES ON OUTSOURCE BASIS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, BANGALORE DATED 6 MAY 2026 BEARING NO. DTE/202627/OUTSOURCE1173 (ANNEXURE-A) INSOFAR AS THE IMPUGNED CRITERIA ARE ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other similar writ, order or direction quashing the Impugned Criteria namely Clause 5.3 and Sl No. 16 (c), (d) and (e) of the Data Sheet in the Request for Proposal for Providing Manpower Services on Outsource Basis for the Department of Technical Education, Bangalore dated 6 May 2026 bearing No. DTE/2026-27/Outsource1173 (Annexure "A") insofar as the Impugned Criteria are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

¶28

b. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28727 WP No. 16593 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the qualification has now been reduced from 60 crores to 29 crores and an addendum has been issued and adequate opportunity will be given for all concerned to participate by providing the same time as that provided at the time of initial publication of the tender.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the said reduction in the qualification and if adequate time is granted, the petitioner would participate in the said tender. Placing both their submission on record, the Writ Petition stand disposed .

¶33

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶34

PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Object Technologies v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Object Technologies v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Basavalingayya Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Punith B R Vs the Town Municipal Council

Smt. L. C. Sobharani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Manikanta Sharma M. K. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mysore Sales International Limited Vs the Director

Smt Shashikala Vs S Munegowda