M/S L.V Traders vs. The Department Of Social Welfare

Held

The Court held that the e-procurement tender notification dated 09.10.2025 is liable to be quashed. The Court found that Clause 7(c) of the tender clearly stipulated that the work order was to be issued within 90 days of the tender date, and in the event no steps were taken within this period, the tender would automatically stand cancelled. It was undisputed that the work order was issued on 19.01.2026, which was beyond the 90-day period expiring on 07.01.2026. The Court found the issuance of the work order to be clearly contrary to the tender conditions. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners merited consideration. The Court quashed the tender notification. It also granted liberty to Respondent No. 4 to claim amounts for works already carried out, with the concerned authorities to consider such claims in accordance with law. The Court also noted that this order would not preclude the parties from issuing a fresh tender notification.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Kapil Enterprises and M/s L.V Traders, challenged an e-procurement tender notification dated 09.10.2025, issued by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department (3rd respondent). The primary contention was that the work order was issued beyond the stipulated 90-day period from the tender date, thereby rendering the tender invalid. The tender notification stipulated that if no steps were taken within 90 days, the tender would automatically stand cancelled. The work order was issued on 19.01.2026, which was beyond the 90-day period expiring on 07.01.2026. The respondents relied on a circular dated 29.11.2021 and Rule 28 of the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurements Rules, 2000, regarding timelines. Rule 22 of the Rules was also considered, which mandates that if evaluation and award are not completed within the validity period or extended period, tenders become invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the e-procurement tender notification dated 09.10.2025 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the work order was issued beyond the stipulated 90-day period as per Clause 7(c) of the tender conditions? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the tender notification was invalid because the work order was issued on 19.01.2026, which is significantly beyond the 90-day period stipulated in Clause 7(c) of the tender, which expired on 07.01.2026. They contended that this delay automatically cancelled the tender as per its own terms. They sought to quash the tender notification and for fresh tenders to be invited for the academic year 2026-27. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents relied on a circular dated 29.11.2021, issued in furtherance of Rule 28 of the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurements Rules, 2000, to justify the timelines for tender activities. They also implicitly argued, through the reliance on Rule 22, that extensions could be sought for tender validity. Respondent No. 4 contended that some work had already been carried out after the work order was issued.