M/S E Ramakrishna Rao vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s E Ramakrishna Rao and M/s Vijayakiran Associates, partnership firms registered under GST, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure-H) passed by the first respondent (Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department). This order was passed in Appeal No. ANASA 180 RPR 2024. The petitioners' technical bid had been accepted in a tender process. The second respondent (Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department) had initially approached the Commissioner and Appellate Authority challenging the acceptance of the technical bid, which was rejected. Subsequently, an appeal led to the order at Annexure-H, which set aside the grant of tender and acceptance of the bid. The petitioners argued that the appellate order was procedurally infirm, citing two different orders (Annexures-H and J) passed on the same day with conflicting conditions, and that they were not made parties to the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner.
Held
The Court held that the proceedings before the Commissioner could not have been entertained in the absence of the petitioners, whose technical bid had already been accepted. The Court also noted the procedural irregularity concerning the issuance of two different orders (Annexures-H and J) on the same day with differing contents. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders at Annexures-D, H, and J. The matter was remitted to the stage of appeal before the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department. All contentions of the parties were kept open. The Court directed the second respondent-Commissioner to decide the appeal and related proceedings within a period of two months. Liberty was reserved for the private respondents to implead necessary parties, including the petitioners, in the proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order passed by the first respondent on 07.04.2025 (Annexure-H) is liable to be quashed on grounds of procedural infirmities, specifically the failure to implead the petitioners as parties in the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner and the issuance of two different orders on the same subject matter. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the appellate order was riddled with procedural infirmities. They argued that they were not impleaded as parties in the appeal proceedings before the Commissioner (Annexure-D), despite their technical bid having been accepted. They also highlighted that two orders, Annexure-H and Annexure-J, concerning the same subject matter, were passed on the same day with different conditions, indicating a procedural irregularity. They sought to direct the respondents to proceed with the tender process. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Karnataka and its officials) regarding the procedural infirmities or the merits of the case. The focus of the judgment is on the procedural aspects raised by the petitioners.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-H passed in Appeal No.ANASA 180 RPR 2024 (1600085) by the first respondent and to direct the respondents to proceed with the tender process. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18838
It is to be noticed that the second respondent had approached the Commissioner and the Appellate Authority challenging the acceptance of technical bid. The said appeal came to be rejected as per the order passed at Annexure-D, which was subsequently taken up in appeal and order was passed on 07.04.2025. By virtue of the said order passed in appeal, the grant of tender and acceptance of bid was set aside.
The petitioner whose bid was accepted submits that pursuant to the tender, petitioner is proceeding to adhere to the tender conditions and the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority through the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department is riddled with procedural infirmities as two orders at Annexure-H and J regarding the same subject matter are passed with different conditions.
It is further submitted that the petitioner whose technical bid was accepted was not arrayed as party in the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18838 appeal proceedings at Annexure-D before the Commissioner.
Needless to state that the proceedings before the Commissioner could not have been entertained in the absence of petitioner whose technical bid was already accepted as on the said date. The subsequent event would reveal that the petitioner has been performing in terms of the tender and work order issued.
In light of the fact that second petitioner was not arrayed as party in the proceedings at Annexure-D and noticing the procedural irregularity insofar as order at Annexure-H and J passed on the same day with different contents, the order at Annexure-D, H and J are set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of appeal before the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Needless to state, in light of dispute relating to tender matters, the authorities to conduct proceedings and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18838 pass orders expeditiously. The second respondent- Commissioner is to decide the matter within a period of two months as regards the appeal and proceedings as reflected in the order at Annexure-D and conclude the same within a period of two months.
Liberty is reserved to the private respondents to implead the appropriate parties as may be found necessary in the proceedings referred to above including the petitioners herein. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP
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.