Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra S/O Dayanand Nayak vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946
WP No. 102683 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 102683 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHAVENDRA S/O DAYANAND NAYAK,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. GOKARNA, TQ. KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARKANNADA-581 343.
2. NAGARAJ S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIK,
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NADUMASKERI, GANGAVATI,
TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTARKANNADA-581 319.
3. JAYAPRAKASH S/O VENKANNA NAYAK,
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. TORKE, TQ. KUMTA,
DIST. UTTARKANNADA-581 344.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HAREESHA.S.NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
AYUB
DESHNUR VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE CHAIRMAN,
THE RIVER RAFTING AND WATER ADVENTURE SPORTS
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION COMMITTEE (R),
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581 301.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY,
THE RIVER RAFTING AND WATER ADVENTURE SPORTS
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION COMMITTEE (R),
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581 301.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG AND
SMT. NANDINI.B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946
WP No. 102683 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN
ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Hareesha S.Nayak., counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Gangadhar.J.M., AAG for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.S.V.Yaji., counsel for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.
2. Though the matter is listed today for orders, it is heard.
3. The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"i) Issue Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned tender notification bearing No.PRA.E/U.NI.K/KA/25/2025-26 dated 17.03.2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent vide ANNEXURE-A, in the interest of justice and equity.
ii) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus Directing the Respondent No. 3 to issue a fresh tender with reasonable time and fair and non-restrictive conditions.
iii) Declare the impugned tender conditions as arbitrary and unconstitutional, particularly Short tender period, NOC requirement, Pre-condition of equipment ownership and Requirement of local office.
iv) PASS any such other suitable order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity."-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946 WP No. 102683 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the tender process initiated by the respondents authority, is arbitrary, unfair, and violative of the principles governing public procurement. It is urged that the tender conditions ought to have been framed differently and that the evaluation conducted by the respondents' authority suffers from infirmities.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is extremely limited and that the petitioners seeks, in effect, a substitution of this Court's view in place of that of the competent authority, which is impermissible in law. Counsel Sri.S.V.Yaji., drew the attention of the Court to Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules 2000, to contend that the time frame fixed for submission of bids is in consonance with the Rules. Hence, they submit that the petitioners cannot have any grievance. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946 WP No. 102683 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the law relating to judicial interference in tender matters is well settled.
6. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned Tender Notification on two principal grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the stipulation of a mere 15 days' period for submission of bids, particularly in the backdrop of intervening holidays, is grossly inadequate, arbitrary, and has the effect of unduly restricting fair and meaningful participation. Such an unreasonably short timeline is alleged to be contrary to the prescribed Guidelines of the Tourism Department and violative of the principles of fair competition. Secondly, it is asserted that the Tender Notification imposes a condition which is impossible of compliance, thereby rendering the entire tender process vitiated in law. To be precise, the present writ petition challenges the adequacy of the time frame provided for submitting bids, as well as certain conditions imposed in the bid documents by the respondents.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946 WP No. 102683 of 2026 HC-KAR Upon a detailed examination of the relevant provisions, the Court notes that the rule governing bid submissions clearly contemplates a 15-day period. The said period is prescribed under the applicable statutory framework and has been adhered to by the respondents in the present case. The petitioners' contention that this period is inadequate, particularly in view of intervening holidays, cannot be sustained in the face of the unequivocal statutory provisions.
Moreover, the contention that the imposition of certain conditions in the bid documents is impossible or burdensome also fails to convince this Court. The petitioners cannot seek judicial intervention merely because some conditions are unfavourable or difficult to meet. The Courts are not forums to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of contractual conditions unless they are manifestly arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of statutory or constitutional principles. As the conditions laid down by the respondents are within the bounds of the applicable rules and regulations, and no specific instance of illegality or unreasonableness has been demonstrated, the petition does not merit judicial intervention. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946 WP No. 102683 of 2026 HC-KAR Furthermore, the Apex Court has consistently held that in matters related to the award of contracts and tender processes, the scope of judicial review is limited to examining the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Courts must exercise restraint and avoid substituting their own views for those of the tendering authority, especially in matters involving technical evaluation and commercial considerations. It is equally well established that the authorities issuing the tender are the best judges of their requirements. Courts do not possess the requisite technical expertise to assess or re-evaluate tender conditions or comparative merits of bids and must, therefore, defer to the wisdom of the administrative authorities.
It is also trite that no bidder has a fundamental right to insist upon the State/ authority entering into a contract with it. Judicial intervention cannot be invoked merely on the ground that certain tender conditions could have been more equitable or favorable.
Interference by this Court is warranted only when the action of the authority is shown to be vitiated by mala fide intention, manifest arbitrariness, discrimination, or violates -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946 WP No. 102683 of 2026 HC-KAR public interest. Similarly, where there is a clear breach of principles of natural justice, procedural impropriety, or abuse of power, the Court may justifiably step in.
In the present case, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any mala fides on the part of the respondents' authority. There is no material on record to establish that the process adopted was arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by extraneous considerations. The challenge raised is essentially directed against the wisdom of the tender conditions and the evaluation thereof, which falls squarely within the domain of the competent authority.
This Court finds no violation of principles of natural justice or any procedural irregularity of such magnitude as would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned tender process.
8. Ordered accordingly.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946 WP No. 102683 of 2026 HC-KAR
9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 5