Sri C I Nawaz Sharif Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:5923 WP No. 34906/2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34906/2024 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C I NAWAZ SHARIF AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O ISMAIL SHARIF S K PROPRIETOR OF M/S K K LOGISTICS REGD. OFFICE AT APMC YARD, D BLOCK CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE- 560 001

¶14

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶15

SRI MOHAMMED ZAILBDDIN

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:5923 WP No. 34906/2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PROPRIETOR OF T M TRANSPORT AZAD NAGAR I MAIN I CROSS CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶20

SMT. SHABEENA PARVEN PROPRIETRIX OF TMK LOGISTICS AZADNAGAR, I MAIN I CROSS CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶21

PASHA ZAKRIA PROPRIETOR OF TMK LOGISTICS NEAR AHAMED PALACE AGASANAKALLU CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.NAGARAJ N NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE TECHNICAL BID VERIFICATION COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. AANASA/CHILLARE SAGANIKE/02/2024-25 DATED. 05.10.2024 AT ANNX-G2 IN SO FAR RELATES TO HOLDING THE PETITIONER IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TECHNICAL BID IN ALL THE THREE LOCATIONS OF CHITRADURGA DISTRICT NAMELY CHITRADURGA, CHALLAKERE AND HIRIYURU ISSUED BY THE R-2 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUSTANCES OF THE CASE; B. QUASH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TECHNICAL BID VERIFICATION COMMITTEE

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:5923 WP No. 34906/2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.AANASA/CHILLARE SAGANIKE/02/2024-25 DTD. 05.10.2024 AT ANNX-G1 ISSUED BY THE R-2 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; C. QUASH THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION OF THE R-2 TO THE PETITIONER ABOUT THE REJECTION OF THE BID OF THE PETITIONER ON 25.11.2024 AS PER ANNX-J2 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; D. DECLARE THAT THE R-3 TO 5 ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TENDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISQUALIFICATION AS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE 5(i) OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TENDER AS PER ANNX-C UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; E. DIRECT THE R-2 TO ACCEPT THE TECHNICAL BID OF THE PETITIONER AND AWARD THE RETAIL CONTRACT IN ANY ONE OF THE LOCATIONS OUT OF THE THREE LOCATIONS AS PER THE TENDER APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:5923 WP No. 34906/2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner has participated in the tender

¶36

floated by the second respondent. The tenders are to be submitted in "Two Covers" for transportation of

¶37

food grains and other items from KFCSC/TAPCMS/other Godowns to Fair Price Depots. The tender is essentially for retail transportation including loading, unloading and arranging food grains in Fair Price Depot. The petitioner's participation is for three talukas within the Chitradurga district.

¶38

The petitioner's bids are rejected on the

¶39

ground that he has not uploaded the prescribed documents or has uploaded documents without due certification. This Court, on 20.12.2024, has permitted the second respondent to open the petitioner's financial bid, subject to the outcome of this petition, without reference to the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid. It was placed on record on

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:5923 WP No. 34906/2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the previous hearing date [22.01.2026] that because the third to fifth respondents had submitted L1 bids for the three concerned talukas, the work orders have been issued. Therefore this Court has called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure the status of the financial bids as evaluated.

¶44

Sri B.Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who has secured records, submits that the work orders have been issued to the concerned respondents on 07.01.2025. It is seen from the records produced that the petitioner's bids have not been considered despite this Court's specific directions. The petitioner could have a cause especially because his/her/its specific case is that he has offered a bid less than the price notified while each of the third to fifth respondents have offered bids more than the price notified. The tender notification stipulates that the bids could be made plus or minus 10% of the price that is notified.

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:5923 WP No. 34906/2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

However, the petitioner's cause is rooted in

¶49

the assertion that the technical bids are rejected notwithstanding all the documents that are uploaded without any defect. This is an aspect that must be considered after due enquiry and scrutiny of all records and this exercise must be under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 [for short, the Act ]. The question for consideration is whether this Court must reserve liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy.

¶50

Sri S.B.Mukkannappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must reserve liberty because it cannot be disputed that the petitioner has offered the lowest of the bids and the bids are rejected on grounds that are impermissible. There is considerable force in this submission because if indeed the petitioner has offered lower bid and those are not considered despite this Court's

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:5923 WP No. 34906/2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

interim directions, all the circumstances must be revisited by the appellate authority so that there is no loss to the exchequer and a just decision prevails. Hence, the following

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The petition therefore stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under the Act, and the petitioner will be entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the present petition.

¶57

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

NV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Sri C I Nawaz Sharif v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C I Nawaz Sharif v. the 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 Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Iffco Tokio Gic Ltd. Vs Srilakshmi @ Lakshmi

Sri Siddaraju Vs S R Enterprises

Sri. M. Narayana Vs Government of Karnataka

Ksm Niketan Pvt. Ltd. Vs Real Estate Regulatory Authority Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka