Sri Ranganath Enterprises, Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5791 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RANGANATH ENTERPRISES PROPRIETARY CONCERN REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1961 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR M.K. SHASHIKANTH PR NO.26, FLAT NO.1 G2B/2 G.F. KIADB AREA, NEAR SILENT SHORES HOTEL, HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE MYSURU - 570 018.

¶8

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

M/S. SHREYA PHARMA REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1961 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI K. KANTHARAJU NO.59/1, NEAR ABESHEK CIRCLE VIJAYANAGAR MAIN ROAD MC KOPPAL, MYSURU - 570 017.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI SANGAMESH R.B, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MS BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

BENGALURU MEDICAL COLLEGE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE KR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN AND DIRECTOR.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-1; SRI BASAVARAJ PATIL, ADV., FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOQUASH THE CONDITION NO. 4 AND 8 MENTIONED IN THE CHECK LIST IN THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DTD 5.02.2026 BEARING NO. BMCRI/D AND C/16/2024-25 AT ANNX-A.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed assailing the conditions at Sl.Nos.4 and 8 mentioned in the checklist in the tender notification dated 05.02.2026. Consequently, a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought against respondent No.2 to relax the condition mentioned at Sl.Nos.4 and 8 of the checklist in the tender notification.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶29

The petitioners, a proprietary concern engaged in the

¶30

business of supply of consumables, chemicals, sutures and other related medical articles to various hospitals, claim to be duly licensed to carry on such business. It is their case that they came across an e-tender notification issued by respondent No.2 inviting bids for procurement of consumables, chemicals and sutures. Intending to participate in the tender process, the petitioners downloaded the tender documents and examined the eligibility and pre-qualification conditions stipulated therein. Upon scrutiny of the checklist appended to the tender notification, the petitioners claim to be aggrieved by Condition Nos.4 and 8. Condition No.4 requires the bidders to furnish annual sales turnover statements for the preceding three years duly certified by a Chartered Accountant, while Condition No.8 mandates submission of the last three years’ statements along with performance certificates and copies of work orders.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

According to the petitioners, the aforesaid

¶35

conditions are arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in nature, inasmuch as they effectively restrict participation only to those entities which have been carrying on business for at least three years. It is therefore contended that the impugned conditions impose an unjustified barrier for new entrants and emerging distributors who are otherwise competent to supply the required consumables and chemicals. The petitioners contend that such restrictive stipulations violate their fundamental right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶36

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had

¶37

raised objections to the said conditions during the pre-bid stage and submitted a representation dated 09.02.2026

¶38

requesting the authorities to suitably relax the eligibility criteria. However, despite the said representation being placed before the authorities during the pre-bid meeting,

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

respondent No.2 has neither considered the request nor taken any steps to modify or relax the impugned conditions.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1. A perusal of the impugned tender notification indicates that respondent No.2 intends to procure manufacturers/distributors for supply of consumables, chemicals and sutures and has stipulated, inter alia, that bidders must produce annual sales turnover statements for the preceding three years along with performance certificates and copies of work orders pertaining to the said period. The effect of these conditions, according to the petitioners, is that only those entities which have been in business for not less than three years are rendered eligible to participate in the tender process. The petitioners therefore contend that the impugned stipulations, particularly Condition Nos.4 and 8

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

of the checklist, operate to exclude new or emerging distributors who otherwise possess the capacity and competence to supply the required materials. On this premise, the petitioners urge that the impugned conditions are arbitrary and unreasonable, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek a direction to the respondents to relax the said conditions.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another¹ , to contend that the conditions requiring production of financial and performance credentials for the preceding three years operate as an unreasonable restriction and therefore deserve to be interfered with by this Court. However, having considered

¶47

the said contention, this Court is of the view that merely prescribing a minimum period of experience in the

¶48

1 2025 INSC 1182

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

relevant line of business cannot, by itself, be regarded as arbitrary or unreasonable. When the tendering authority is seeking to procure consumables, chemicals and sutures for institutional use, particularly for hospitals and medical establishments, it is open to the authority to insist that bidders should demonstrate a certain degree of stability in business, financial capacity and prior experience in execution of similar supplies. A stipulation requiring a bidder to have been engaged in the relevant business for a minimum period of three years cannot be said to be per se irrational or discriminatory, as such a requirement is often incorporated to ensure reliability, continuity of supply and accountability in performance of contractual obligations.

¶52

7. Be that as it may, the learned standing counsel

¶53

appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioners themselves have not participated in the pre-bid meeting convened by the tendering authority. It is further submitted that the representation dated 09.02.2026 seeking relaxation of the

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

impugned conditions was addressed by the petitioners without attending the said pre-bid meeting. Significantly, the date on which the petitioners claim to have submitted the representation coincides with the very date on which the pre-bid meeting was scheduled to be held. In the absence of participation in the pre-bid meeting, which is precisely intended to enable prospective bidders to seek clarification or modification of tender conditions, the grievance now projected by the petitioners before this Court assumes less significance.

¶57

It is by now well settled through a consistent line of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as

¶58

this Court that judicial review in matters relating to tenders and contractual conditions is extremely limited. Courts ordinarily exercise restraint in interfering with the terms and conditions prescribed in tender notifications.

¶59

Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where the conditions imposed are shown to be manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable or actuated by mala

¶60

9 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

fides, or where the conditions are deliberately structured in a manner that excludes healthy competition and confers an undue advantage upon a select few participants. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority to examine the commercial wisdom of the tendering authority or to substitute its own view as to what conditions would be more appropriate. In the present case, merely because the impugned tender notification stipulates that a proprietary concern should have been in existence and engaged in the relevant business for a period of three years prior to the tender notification, the same cannot be construed as arbitrary or unreasonable so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Unless the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the impugned conditions have the effect of substantially eliminating competition in the market despite the availability of several financially and technically competent participants, this Court cannot dilute or rewrite the eligibility criteria framed by the tendering authority merely on the ground

¶64

10 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

that such conditions may incidentally exclude certain new

¶68

entrants.

¶69

The scope and parameters of judicial review in tender matters have been elaborately considered in a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is well recognized that while inviting tenders, the primary objective of the procuring authority is to secure participation from competent bidders who not only possess the requisite financial capacity but also have adequate technical experience and a demonstrable track record in execution of similar contracts. Such requirements are intended to safeguard public interest and ensure that the contract is executed efficiently and without disruption. Therefore, if the tendering authority, in its commercial wisdom, considers it appropriate to stipulate that bidders must possess a minimum of three years’ experience in the

¶70

relevant line of business and support such experience with turnover statements, performance certificates and work orders, this Court cannot, in exercise of its power of

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

judicial review, sit in judgment over the desirability of

¶75

such conditions or subject them to a comparative evaluation. The authority issuing the tender enjoys a reasonable degree of freedom to prescribe eligibility criteria, subject only to the limitation that such conditions should not violate constitutional guarantees or be demonstrably arbitrary.

¶76

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers v. NEW J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and Ors.² , held that “the author of the tender document is the best

¶77

person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings.

¶78

2 (2021) 16 SCC 808

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:13639 WP No. 5791 of 2026

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uflex Ltd.

¶83

v. State of T.N.³ , held that the judicial review in contractual matters is constrained with its own limitation and that judicial review of administrative action is only intended to curb arbitrariness, unreasonableness, irrationality and malafides.

¶84

In the present case, the requirement of three years’ experience cannot be said to substantially shut out the majority of potential bidders in the market. On the contrary, it appears to be a reasonable measure intended to ensure that only bidders with some degree of experience and operational capability participate in the procurement process. Consequently, this Court does not find any arbitrariness or illegality in Condition Nos.4 and 8 of the tender notification so as to warrant interference.

¶85

3 (2022) 1 SCC 165

¶86