M/S Sharpwatch Investigation Security Services PVT LTD. vs. The State Of Karnataka

The present appeals are filed impugning the common judgment dated 25.10.2025 passed in W.P. Nos.17456/2025 [GM- TEN] c/w 12067/2025[GM-TEN]. Since the parties in both the appeals are the same and the subject matter of the appeals are the same, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50886-DB

The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that respondent No.3 - Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute [BMCRI] issued a tender dated 01.08.2024 for providing housekeeping and facility management services to BMCRI, BMCRI hostels, Victoria Hospital, Vani Vilasa Hospital and Minto Eye Hospital on outsource basis. However, the said tender was recalled and a fresh tender was issued on 22.11.2024. The format in which the financial tender was required to be submitted, is as under:

A pre-bid meeting was held on 03.12.2024, consequent to which a corrigendum dated 03.01.2025 was issued whereunder, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50886-DB inter alia, the marking system and specifications were modified. Further, the format of the financial tender was modified as under: Service Head Basic salary as per Govt. (as per Table A) Chemicals and Consumables Etc Machines, Tools and Equipment's Housekeeping as defined at scope of tender (monthly hiring charges) Agency Charges (if any) Total amount in Rs. per month inclusive of all taxes excluding GST in figures

The last date for submission of the bid was 23.01.2025. The technical bid was opened on 27.01.2025 and the financial bid, on 21.03.2025. 5. The appellant - M/s.Sharpwatch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd., [Sharpwatch] filed W.P.No.8822/2025 seeking, inter alia, a direction to BMRCI to consider its representation dated 22.03.2025. It transpires that Sharpwatch had not submitted the financial bid in the prescribed format and hence, made a representation dated 22.03.2025. This Court, vide order dated 04.04.2025, disposed of the said writ petition as being premature. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50886-DB

On 15.04.2025, W.P. No.12067/2025 was filed by Spoorthy Integrated - Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd [Spoorthy] for a direction to BMRCI to complete the tender evaluation process. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No.1 - Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, State of Karnataka, issued an Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2025 directing the Director-cum-Dean of BMCRI to issue a fresh tender in terms of Rule of 22 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 [KTPP RULES]. On 16.06.2025, Spoorthy preferred another writ petition being W.P.No.17456/2025 seeking to quash the said Official Memorandum dated 06.06.2025. 7. Both the said writ petitions were considered together and explanation/clarification was sought as to the backdrop in which the Office Memorandum dated 6.06.2025 was issued. The learned Single Judge, vide common order dated 25.10.2025, disposed of the said writ petitions, inter alia, ordering as under:

By virtue of the action of Principal Secretary, direction is given to reconsider the re-tendering. If that were to be so, the argument of respondent State that direction by the Principal Secretary is only in furtherance of requirement to obtain approval by the Cabinet is not made out. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50886-DB

As regards such contention that the contract requires approval by the Cabinet, it is to be observed that such condition is not found in the tender document.

The mandate as put forward of procedure to be followed in terms of Transaction of Business Rules 1977, is an internal procedure and ought to be limited to such administrative approval and cannot substitute or amount to sitting in appeal over the decision of the tender accepting authority.

The order at Annexure-'J' dated 06.06.2025 is liable to be set aside as being arbitrary insofar as the mere possibility of one of the parties approaching Court could not be a legally permissible reason to order for re-tender. The assertion that there was a provision for re-tender under the KTPP Act and accordingly, the same may be considered is not legally tenable, as under Section 14 of the KTPP Act, there could be rejection of tender only if there is no acceptance. In the present case, the tender accepting authority had arrived at the conclusion that the tender was to be awarded to the petitioner and the tender accepting authority has observed that it was necessary for acceptance of the tender as (a) in the event of re-tender, maintenance of transparency would be difficult; (b) In the interest of patients and administration, it was necessary to accept the bids made and finalize the tender. If such was the opinion of the tender accepting authority, what remained was only the approval and issuance of Work Order. The direction to reconsider and examining re-tender is arbitrary as indicating a decision ignoring the opinion of the tender accepting authority and defeats the objective of KTPP Act to ensure transparency.

Accordingly, the Order/Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2025 at Annexure-'J', in W.P.No.17456/2025 is set aside. The State represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education to take appropriate steps for approval of tender in light of the discussion made at para-37 strictly. No other, approval would be required as clarified in paras 31 to 33. Such decision is to be taken without re-opening any of the contentions discussed and as regards which findings are recorded. Once approval is obtained in terms of the discussion made above, the BMCRI HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50886-DB to issue Work Order within a period of 30 days. In the event of any delay, necessary extension of time is to be sought for before this Court. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. "

Being aggrieved, the present writ appeals are filed by Sharpwatch. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants that the validity of the tender period had expired on 23.04.2025 and that the tender bid itself was invalid. Hence, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed to issue work order within a period of 30 days. It is further contended that the allegation of mala fide and bias alleged against the appellants are unsubstantiated. It is also contended that the appellant had quoted the lowest financial bid of Rs.1,15,12,045.23, whereas the writ petitioner - Spoorthy - quoted a sum of Rs.1,16,88,540.61. 9. It is pertinent to note here that the financial tender was required to be submitted in the format as specified in the tender notification as noticed above, which required the tenderers to submit the rates quoted per square metre per month for the total area, for the entire contract period. Vide the corrigendum, the format was modified which also required the tenderers to furnish HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50886-DB the various details namely, the basic salary, chemicals and consumables, machine, tools and equipments, agency charges and total amount inclusive of GST. Admittedly, the appellant had not quoted the financial bid in terms of the requirements of the tender.

The Tender Scrutiny Committee in its meeting held on 07.04.2025 had specifically recorded that the appellant - Sharpwatch and another tenderer namely, M/s. Detectwell Security Services Ltd., [Detectwell] have not submitted their rates as per the tender rules, as a result of which, that bid was invalid and said companies were disqualified. It is pertinent to notice that the financial bids submitted by the tender participants as noticed in the proceedings of the purchase committee, which are as under: Sl. No. Bidders Mentioned Rate in Rupees 1 M/s Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt Ltd 46.63 2 M/s Detectwell Security Services Pvt Ltd 46.63 3 M/s Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd 1,16,88,540.61 4 M/s BVG India Pvt Ltd 1,31,01,171.00

It was noticed by the purchase committee that the appellant (Sharpwatch) sent an email dated 24.03.2025 clarifying that in the bid submitted by them, they have mentioned the rate on the basis HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50886-DB of square metre. In the said email dated 24.03.2025, it was also noted that if the said rate per square metre as mentioned by the financial bid is to be calculated, their financial bid would be Rs.1,15,12,045.23. 12. It was clear from the aforementioned that the tenderers were specifically required to make their financial bid in terms of the stipulations contained in the tender notification and corrigendum. Admittedly, the appellant did not make its financial bid in terms of the prescribed format and hence, the bids of the appellant and Detectwell were treated as invalid and the said companies were disqualified.

It is also pertinent to note that the bids were evaluated by applying the QCBS criteria and the writ petitioner was the successful tenderer by obtaining the highest marks. Hence, it is clear that the bid of the appellant itself having been invalid, which has not been called in question by the appellant, the question of granting any reliefs in the present appeals does not arise.

Additionally, the learned Single Judge was justified in noticing that the Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2025 issued by the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50886-DB Principal Secretary was arbitrary and the learned Single Judge was also justified in directing that the tender process was required to be completed in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and was justified in directing approval of the tender in terms of the impugned order.

We find no error in the conclusion of the learned Single Judge.

In view of the aforementioned, the above appeals are dismissed as being devoid of merit. (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE