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 15.10.2026. This communication indicated that the impugned tender notification dated 16.09.2026, which was the subject of the writ petition, had been withdrawn. Furthermore, it was stated that the Earnest Money Deposit of the tenderers had been ordered to be refunded. Consequently, the Court found that the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition had become infructuous due to the withdrawal of the tender. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. The Court did not decide on the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the tender conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Vinishma Technologies Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a tender notification issued by the State of Karnataka's Minority Welfare Department. The tender was for the supply of school shoes for students in minority residential schools. The petitioner objected to a condition in the tender requiring GST and MSE registration to be issued from the State of Karnataka, and prior supply of school shoes within Karnataka. The petitioner argued this condition was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated constitutional provisions. The respondents are the State of Karnataka and its relevant departments. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent withdrawal of the tender by the authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition in the tender notification 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 contended that this requirement unfairly restricts participation to bidders registered only within Karnataka, thereby creating an unconstitutional barrier to trade and commerce. The petitioner argued that GST and MSE registrations are national in scope and should not be confined to a single state for a tender of this nature. The State's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the condition requiring prior supply of school shoes 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 argued that this condition similarly restricts competition and discriminates against bidders with experience supplying government institutions elsewhere in India. The State's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.