M/S Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders vs. The State Of Karnataka

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari Quashing the impugned tender notification dated 15.10.2025, bearing No:Jamni/ Sakae/Bem (Na)/Lekka/Cr-22/2025-26, issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A, in so far as the petitioner is concerned in the justice and equity

To issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to invite fresh tender, in the interest of justice and equity.

Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the minimum time period prescribed under Rule 13 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48358 2000 [‘KTPP Rules’ for short] has not been adhered to by the tender issuing authority, inasmuch as the time period fixed is 22 days which is less than the period of 30 days required in terms of Clause (B) of Subrule (1) Rule 17 being 30 days, the petitioner is before this Court.

In support of his contention, Shri Vigneshswar Shastri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. -v- STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANOTHER [SLP No. 24075/2025], more particularly para 20 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

Such a restriction, therefore, cannot be justified as reasonable within the meaning of 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The State while it enjoys the freedom to prescribe the conditions in the tender, cannot exercise that power in a manner that infringes upon constitutional guarantees, by closing the market to outsiders without just cause. The doctrine of level playing field requires that gates of competition be opened to all who are equally placed. The impugned tender condition excludes the competent and experienced suppliers, who may have executed contracts of far greater magnitude in other States or for the Central HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48358 Government departments, from participating in the tender and has the impact of promoting cartelisation. The im- pugned condition operates as a closed door to outsiders and restricts the wider participation of bidders and restricts competition. The impugned ten-der condition, therefore, is violative of Article 14 and also offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

By relying on VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., case, the submission of Sri.Vigneshwara Shastry, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has to be a level playing field between all tenderers and the reduction in the time period now will have an effect of destroying the level playing field. Lastly, he submits that in the tender document, the prices have not been fixed for the grains to be supplied and as such, said tender is required to be quashed.

The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is whether the reduced time period fixed in the tender date at 15.10.2025 of 22 days is in compliance with the requirement of the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48358 Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act and Rules?

Rule 17 of KTPP Rules is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

Minimum time for submission of tenders:- (1) Tender Inviting Authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant tender Bulletin the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum period shall be as follows:- (a) For tender upto rupees two crores in value, thirty days, and (b) For tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value thirty days (2) Any reduction in the time stipulated under sub-rule (1) has to be specifically authorized by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing.

In terms of subrule (1) of Rule 17 for tenderers up to ₹2,00,00,000/- [Two crores] in value, a minimum period of 15 days is required to be fixed and for tenders in excess of ₹2,00,00,000/- [Two crores] in value, 30 days is required to be fixed. However, in terms of subrule (2) of Rule 17, a reduction in the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48358 time period could be made by an authority superior to the tender inviting authority for reasons to be recorded, in writing, which shall not be less than 7 days.

Learned AGA has produced an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.09.2025, wherein the Deputy Commissioner, considering the immediate requirement of the grains, reduced the time period by giving reasons.

Though learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the tender has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, I am unable to agree to the same inasmuch as in terms of clause (10) of the said tender notice, the tender inviting authority is the Joint Director, Social Welfare Department and the tender accepting authority is the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner being a superior officer than the tender issuing authority having passed an order on 26.09.2025 reducing the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48358 period of tender to less than 30 days’, I am of the considered opinion that the requirement of subrule (2) of Rule 17 of the Rules have been satisfied.

Insofar as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the price of the various items have not been fixed, the said contention is no longer res integra inasmuch as this court in Shiv Shakthi Dal Industries -v- State of Karnataka [W.P No.202094/2024 DD 16.12.2024] held that the same would not be required for the purpose of calling for such a tender since an exercise for price discovery has been undertaken. In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE