Sri Chowdeshwari Traders vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. To Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned Tender Notification No. DOS/EPRO/RFIX(PM)/1/2025 dated 17.11.2025 and Tender Notification No. DOS/EPRO/RFIX(PM)/4/2025 2025- 26/INDO116/CALL-2 dated 26.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A and B. And; in so far as Petitioner concerned as.
b. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51683 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the Representations dated 04.10.2025 to invite fresh tender notification by adopting the method of empanelment to invite empanelled manufactures to supply of plastic mountages used in silkworm rearing to the beneficiaries under the central sector and State Sericulture Scheme for the year 2025-26 and "Supply of installation and maintenance of electrical operated HI- pressure portable power sprayers to beneficiaries under central sector and state sericulture scheme for the year 2025-26" as per Annexures- J and J1. c. To grant such other order or further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper including the costs of these proceedings to the petitioners.
The Petitioners claim to be empanelled vendors of the agriculture department, having supplied various equipment to the said department from time to time.
Firstly, the submission is that on earlier occasions the tender which had been issued was on an empanelment basis and the equipment with regard to which an order had been placed had been supplied by the Petitioners. Now as per Annexure-B, the terms and nature of the tender, has been changed inasmuch as without empaneling, the successful tender would have to supply the equipment which HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51683 has been ordered; Secondly, the submission is that the annual turnover of the tender has been increased to 100% of the estimated value of the tender, and thirdly, the submission is that the performance capability would be adjudged on the basis of the tenderer having supplied equipment similar to the type specified in the tender up to at least 80% of the estimated tender quantity in any one of the last 3 years from 2021-2022 to 2024-2025. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners is firstly that the terms of the tender have been changed from empanelment to supply by the successful tenderer; Secondly, it is submitted that since on an earlier occasion it was on an empanelment basis, the entire supply was not made by any tenderer, and therefore to meet the requirement of 80% of the estimated tender quantity would be difficult for the empaneled tenderers like the Petitioners; Thirdly, it is submitted that the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51683 Horticulture Department has continued the process of empanelment, and only the Sericulture Department has come up with a tender for supply. On that basis, the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.
Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners as regards the average annual financial turnover being 100% of the estimated value of the tender, the same cannot be found fault with since that is a requirement which could be prescribed by the tender-issuing Authority to make the basic qualification for considering the technical and financial viability of the tenderer.
Insofar as the contention that to assess the performance capability, the tenderer is required to have supplied at least 80% of the estimated tender quantity, again, I am of the considered opinion that this is at the pure discretion of the tender-issuing Authority. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51683
Though learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that there will be no level playing field between the earlier empaneled tenderers and the bidders who will now participate, I am of the considered opinion that a change in the manner of issuing the tender and the requirement thereof is at the discretion of the tender issuing Authority so long as it is not shown to be arbitrary. The change in empanelment to supply contract cannot be said to be arbitrary inasmuch as the Respondents now want one supplier who would be responsible for the supply.
The eligibility of 80% for a regular tenderer and 40% for a micro and small enterprise ex facie cannot be said to be arbitrary inasmuch as to ascertain the financial viability as also the technical capability, the tender issuing Authority could always fix a certain bare minimum amount or a threshold value of supply made in the earlier years. In this particular matter, the minimum requirement is for a supply of 80% in HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51683 any one of the last 3 years and not in all 3 years, which cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or arbitrary.
Insofar as the last submission, the tender was earlier issued on an empanelment basis, and now the tender has been issued on a supply basis. Again, this is a matter which is at the discretion of the tender issuing Authority. The tender issuing Authority cannot be restrained from changing the manner of issuing the tender unless the same is shown to be arbitrary and/or such change in the tender conditions is established to have been made to favour any particular tenderer.
In the present matter, these two conditions of 100% financial turnover of the estimated value of the tender and 80% supply of the estimated value of the tender cannot be said to favour any particular tenderer, considering that the value of the tender is Rs. 5.80 crores. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51683
In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.