Dismissed¶41

M/S L.V. Traders v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2026WP/19284/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999; inspection of tender documents; rival tenderer; no vested right; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; GM-TEN; Tribal Welfare Department; Director Tribal Welfare Department; Deputy Commissioner Chikkamagaluru; Chikkamagaluru Zilla Panchayat CEO; Integrated Tribal Development Project Project Coordinator; representations Annexures F to F2; WP No. 19284 of 2026; Suraj Govindaraj J.; High Court of Karnataka; petition dismissed; liberty to seek remedies under law.

What did the court decide?

There is no particular right under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 entitling one of the tenderers to have an inspection of the documents submitted by any other tenderer. ¶36

M/S L.V. Traders Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:32216 WP No. 19284 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19284 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S L.V. TRADERS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT JOSEPH NAGAR, BEHIND CHURCH PROPRIETORSHIP, WARD NO.12, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 401 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. KRISHNAVENI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O B. PARSHURAM

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

DIRECTOR TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NO. 34, 1ST FLOOR, LOTUS TOWERS, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32216 WP No. 19284 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 101.

¶20

CHIEF EXCUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) CHIKKAMAGALURU ZILLA PANCHAYAT , CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 101.

¶21

THE PROJECT COORDINATOR INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ZILLA PANCHAYATH BUILDING, ROOM NO.26, 1ST FLOOR, JYOTHI NAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 102.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21/05/2026, 17/06/2026 AND 20/06/2026 (ANNEXURES-F TO F-2) AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32216 WP No. 19284 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Sri. Ashok N Nayak, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶31

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

a. Call for the records;

¶33

b. Issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent nos. 2 to 5 to consider the representations of the Petitioner dated 21/05/2026, 17/06/2026 and 20/06/2026 (Annexures-F to F-2)

¶34

c. Pass such other or orders as this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioner is that vide representations dated 21.05.2026, 17.06.2026, and 26.06.2026, at Annexures F to F2, respectively, the petitioner who is a tenderer, had sought for inspection of the documents submitted by the other tenderer. The said representations not having been considered, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶36

There is no particular right under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999,

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:32216 WP No. 19284 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

entitling one of the tenderers to have an inspection of the documents submitted by any other tenderer.

¶41

Hence, there is no vested right in the petitioner to seek for such inspection, and as such, for this Court to issue a mandamus directing to consider such a representation. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed , reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available under law.

¶42

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

M/S L.V. Traders v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S L.V. Traders v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prosperity Asset Xl LLP. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Vasanth Enterprises Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority

M/S. G. M. Infinite (Dwelling) India Pvt. Ltd., Vs State Bank of India Limited

Ashok Kriplani Vs Apartment Buyer'S Consumer Association

Smt. Indra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S.Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka