P. Vikramdeva Reddy vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioners, who were successful tenderers for solid waste management services, filed writ petitions challenging subsequent tender notifications issued by Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Ltd. (BSWML). BSWML had issued letters of acceptance on September 4, 2026, to the petitioners for various packages, specifying contract prices, security deposit requirements, and stamp duty for agreement papers. The petitioners, however, responded to these letters with qualifying conditions. As the petitioners did not proceed unconditionally to execute the agreements, BSWML issued new tender notifications on September 19, 2026. The petitioners are aggrieved by these subsequent notifications and have approached the High Court seeking to quash them.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the subsequent tender notifications. The reasoning is that the petitioners, as successful tenderers, received letters of acceptance on September 4, 2026, but responded with qualifying conditions rather than an unqualified acceptance. The Court found that the petitioners had not acted further pursuant to the letter of acceptance by taking the necessary steps to execute the agreement. In the absence of an unqualified response and subsequent action by the petitioners, the Court concluded that they had no locus standi to question the subsequent tender notifications issued by BSWML on September 19, 2026. The petitions were dismissed as being devoid of merit. However, the Advocate General stated that the respondents have no objection to the petitioners participating in the impugned tender notification, and it is open for them to do so.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, having responded to the letters of acceptance with qualifying conditions, are entitled to challenge the subsequent tender notifications issued by BSWML? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argue that a Government Order dated June 4, 2026, formed a sub-committee to review tenders, and they had set out their apprehensions in their reply to the letter of acceptance. They implicitly contend that their qualified response was justified due to these circumstances. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents contend that the petitioners failed to act further pursuant to the letters of acceptance without qualification. They argue that in the absence of an unqualified response and taking further steps as per the letter of acceptance, the petitioners are not entitled to question the subsequent tender notifications.