Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court noted that the learned Additional Government Advocate had filed a memo placing on record a communication dated October 15, 2026, indicating that the impugned tender notification dated September 17, 2026, had been withdrawn. The communication also stated that the Earnest Money Deposit of the tenderers would be refunded. Consequently, the Court found that the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition had become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the discriminatory nature of the tender conditions. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition was disposed of on the ground of infructuousness.

Facts

The petitioner, Vinishma Technologies Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a tender notification issued by the State of Karnataka for the supply of nursery school kits. The petitioner was aggrieved by certain conditions in the tender, specifically requiring GST and MSE registration to be issued from the State of Karnataka, and prior supply experience within Karnataka. The petitioner contended these conditions were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated constitutional provisions. The respondents are the State of Karnataka and its concerned departments. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the State of Karnataka, through a communication dated October 15, 2026, withdrew the impugned tender notification and ordered the refund of Earnest Money Deposit to the tenderers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition in the tender requiring GST and MSE registration to be issued from the State of Karnataka is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 301 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that such a requirement restricts competition and is discriminatory against businesses registered in other states. 2. Whether the condition in the tender requiring prior supply of school kits within the State of Karnataka is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 301 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner contended that this condition unfairly excludes bidders with experience supplying government institutions elsewhere in India. 3. In the alternative, whether the said conditions should be read down to permit participation of bidders holding valid GST and MSE registration in any state or union territory of India and having supply experience with government institutions anywhere in India? The petitioner sought this alternative relief to ensure wider participation and fair competition. The respondents, through the learned AGA, did not file a detailed response but placed on record the withdrawal of the tender.