Sri Shafi Ahammed.H vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of Clause 4(ix) of the re-tender notification. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner intended to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The Court granted this permission, reserving the petitioner's liberty to file the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty. The interim order previously granted was extended until January 5, 2026, to facilitate the filing of the appeal. The Court further directed that if the appeal was not filed by January 5, 2026, the interim order would stand automatically vacated. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within 30 days of its filing. No specific finding was made on the arbitrariness of the clause or the technical bid evaluation.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Shafi Ahammed H., proprietor of M/s Deccan King Poha Industries, filed a writ petition challenging a re-tender notification dated January 21, 2025, issued by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply and Consumers Affairs Department. The challenge was specifically directed at Clause 4(ix) of the tender condition, which stipulated that bidders must have an annual turnover of ₹60 lakhs and above from food grains or food items transportation activity. The petitioner sought to quash this condition and requested the respondents to proceed with the conditions from a previous tender notification dated August 23, 2024. The petitioner also sought to quash the technical bid evaluating proceedings dated February 25, 2025, for Kottur taluk, Vijaynagar District, and requested their financial bid be opened without reference to the impugned re-tender notification.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 4(ix) of the re-tender notification dated January 21, 2025, which mandates an annual turnover of ₹60 lakhs and above from food grains or food items transportation activity, is arbitrary and restrictive, thereby violating principles of fair competition and the petitioner's right to participate in public procurement? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the restrictive turnover requirement in the re-tender notification was arbitrary and unduly restricted competition, preventing eligible bidders like themselves from participating. They sought to revert to the conditions of the previous tender notification dated August 23, 2024, which presumably had less restrictive eligibility criteria. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents in response to the petitioner's challenge to Clause 4(ix).