M/S E Ramakrishna Rao vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioners' challenge to the addendum and clarification. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The reason for withdrawal was to enable the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The Court granted this liberty to the petitioners. The interim order previously granted in the writ petition was extended until January 5, 2026, to facilitate the filing of the appeal. The Court clarified that if the appeal was not filed by this date, the interim order would automatically stand vacated. It was also directed that the appellate authority would consider any application for extension of the interim order post-January 5, 2026. The appellate authority was further directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within 30 days of its filing.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s E Ramakrishna Rao and three other transport companies, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. They sought to quash specific clauses (Clauses 30 and 33) of an addendum and clarification dated September 10, 2024, issued by the Food and Civil and Consumer Affairs Department of the State of Karnataka, concerning tender No. CFS/IT-04/WS-Tender/01/2024-26. They also sought to quash Clauses 6 and 11 of another addendum and clarification dated September 10, 2024, concerning tender No. CFS/IT-04/RT-Tender/02/2024-26. The petitioners requested the court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate direction. The matter came before the court for preliminary hearing.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was whether the addendum and clarification dated September 10, 2024, issued by the Food and Civil and Consumer Affairs Department, specifically Clauses 30 and 33 of tender No. CFS/IT-04/WS-Tender/01/2024-26 and Clauses 6 and 11 of tender No. CFS/IT-04/RT-Tender/02/2024-26, were legally valid and ought to be quashed. The petitioners sought directions to quash these specific clauses. The respondents, the State of Karnataka and its officials from the Food and Civil and Consumer Affairs Department, were expected to defend the addendum and clarification. The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by each side, but the petitioners' prayer indicates their contention that these clauses were objectionable and required judicial intervention. The Court was asked to decide on the legality of these tender conditions.