Karnataka High Court
M/S Malaprabha Industries vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 05.12.2025
Pronounced on : 21.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.107034 OF 2025 (GM - TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MALAPRABHA INDUSTRIES
REGISTERED PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
C-48, KSSIDC INDUSTRIES ESTATE
ANGOL INDUSTRIES ESTATE
UDYAMBAG, BELAGAVI - 590 008
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI BASAVARAJ R. BALEKUNDARAGI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, SRI BASAVARAJ YARADONI AND
SMT MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NO.16/D, DEVRAJ URS BHAVAN
3RD FLOOR, MILLERS TANK BED AREA
VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
2
2. VISHWAKARMA COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
NO.16/D, DEVRAJ URS BHAVAN
3RD FLOOR, MILLERS TANK BED AREA
VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
3. M/S.MAHAVIR SUBMERSIBLES PVT.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SUBASH S, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE
AT INDUSTRIAL PLOT NO.84
KANABARAGI INDUSTRIAL AREA
KANABARAGI VILLAGE
KANABARAGI HOBLI, BELAGAVI
KARNATAKA - 590 015.
4. M/S. SHREE ARIHANT SUBMERSIBLE
PUMPS PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI KALPESH NO.9, 1ST MAIN ROAD
PT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MYSURU ROAD CROSS
DEEPANJALI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 026.
5. M/S. BHAIRAVI PUMPS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR SURESH JAIN, NO.161/34
3RD MAIN ROAD, INDUSTRIAL TOWN
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 044.
6. DUKE PUMPING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,
KARNATAKA BRANCH
3
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER BASAVARAJA SK
#56/5b, NANDI TOWER 2ND FLOOR
ROOM NO.5
AVK COLLEGE ROAD
2ND MAIN PJ EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
7. SWASTIK PUMPS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED PERSON
A N SHIVAKUMAR
48/53, SRIRAMA LAYOUT
GNANAJYOTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 056.
8. ATLANTA PUMPS PRIVATE LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
4TH MAIN, 487, D1, D2, D3,
13TH CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BENGALURU - 560 058.
9. M/S.MPP INDUSTRIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI SURESH KUMAR P.,
90/1-23, 2ND MAIN ROAD
VITTAL NAGAR
MARKANDAYA LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 026.
10. M/S. VINAYAKA ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING
REPRESENTED BY KRISHNA
NO.237/112/8
B.M.ROAD, KANAKAPURA CIRCLE
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
11. SRI VINAYAKA ELECTRICALS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
4
NO.78, SHREE GURUVENKATANATH NILAY
THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE
YESHWANTAPURA HOBLI
5TH CROSS, BHAVANI NAGARA
TIPPENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 073.
(AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED
17.10.2025)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI AND SRI ARUNKUMAR K.N., ADVOCATES FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED TENDERS BEARING NO.¸ÀASÉå:PÀ.«.D.¤/mÉA/¥ÀAªÉÆÃ/¹.Dgï-439/2025-26 DATED 21.08.2025 FOR 'SUPPLY, INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF SUBMERSIBLE PUMP SETS WITH ACCESSORIES SUITABLE FOR 165MM DIA BOREWELLS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN BELAGAVI, RAICHUR AND YADGIRI, BALLARI AND VIJAYANAGAR, BIDAR AND KALABURAGI, KOPPAL AND GADAG, HASSAN, VIJAYAPURA AND BAGALKOTE, HAVERI, UDUPI, DAKSHINA KANNADA AND CHIKAMAGALUR, DHARWAD AND UTTARA KANNADA, CHAMARAJANAGAR AND KODAGU, TUMKUR AND CHITRADURGA, BENGALURU URBAN AND RURAL AND RAMNAGARA, KOLAR AND CHIKKABALLAPURA, MYSORE, MANDYA, SHIVAMOGGA AND DAVANAGERE DISTRICTS AND KARNATAKA UNDER GANGA KALYANA SCHEME FOR THE YEAR 2025-26' INVITED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16 AND G RESPECTIVELY; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.
5A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI STRIKING DOWN TENDER CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN [PART I, CLAUSE II(1)], [PART II, CLAUSE 1(a)], [PART I, CLAUSE II, SL.NO.11], [PART I, CLAUSE II, SL.NO.13], [PART I, CLAUSE II, SL.NO.8] IN THE IMPUGNED TENDERS BEARING NO. ¸ÀASÉå:PÀ.«.D.¤/mÉA/¥ÀAªÉÆÃ/¹.Dgï-439/2025-26 DATED 21.08.2025 FOR 'SUPPLY, INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF SUBMERSIBLE PUMP SETS WITH ACCESSORIES SUITABLE FOR 165MM DIA BOREWELLS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN BELAGAVI, RAICHUR AND YADGIRI, BALLARI AND VIJAYANAGAR, BIDAR AND KALABURAGI, KOPPAL AND GADAG, HASSAN, VIJAYAPURA AND BAGALKOTE, HAVERI, UDUPI, DAKSHINA KANNADA AND CHIKAMAGALUR, DHARWAD AND UTTARA KANNADA, CHAMARAJANAGAR AND KODAGU, TUMKUR AND CHITRADURGA, BENGALURU URBAN AND RURAL AND RAMNAGARA, KOLAR AND CHIKKABALLAPURA, MYSORE, MANDYA, SHIVAMOGGA AND DAVANAGERE DISTRICTS AND KARNATAKA UNDER GANGA KALYANA SCHEME FOR THE YEAR 2025-26' INVITED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16 AND G. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner, in the case at hand, seeks the following prayer:
a. "Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned Tenders bearing No. ¸ÀASÉå:PÀ.«.D.¤/mÉA/¥ÀAªÉÆÃ/¹.Dgï - 439/2025-26 dated 21-08-2025 for 'supply, installation 6 and commissioning of submersible pump sets with accessories suitable for 165 mm dia borewells in various locations in Belagavi, Raichur & Yadgiri, Ballari and Vijayanagar, Bidar & Kalaburagi, Koppal & Gadag, Hassan, Vijayapura & Bagalakote, Haveri, Udupi, Dakshina Kannada & Chikamagalur, Dharwad & Uttara Kannada, Chamarajnagar & Kodagu, Tumkur & Chitradurga, Bengaluru Urban & Rural and Ramanagara, Kolar & Chikkaballapura, Mysore, Mandya, Shivamogga & Davanagere Districts of Karnataka under Ganga Kalyana Scheme for the year 2025-26' invited by the 2nd respondent at Annexures A, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16 & G respectively; or in the alternative a. Issue a writ of certiorari striking down tender conditions mentioned in [Part-1, Clause II (1)], (Part-II, Clause 1(a)], (Part-I, Clause II, Sl.No.11], [Part-I, Clause II, Sl.No.13], (Part-I, Clause II, Sl.No.8] in the impugned Tender bearing No. ¸ÀASÉå:PÀ.«.D.¤/mÉA/¥ÀAªÉÆÃ/¹.Dgï 439/2025- 26 dated 21-08-2025 for 'supply, installation and commissioning of submersible pump sets with accessories suitable for 165 mm dia borewells in various locations in Belagavi, Raichur & Yadgiri, Ballari and Vijayanagar, Bidar & Kalaburagi, Koppal & Gadag, Hassan, Vijayapura & Bagalakote, Haveri, Udupi, Dakshina Kannada & Chikamagalur, Dharwad & Uttara Kannada, Chamarajnagar & Kodagu, Tumkur & Chitradurga, Bengaluru Urban & Rural and Ramanagara, Kolar & Chikkaballapura, Mysore, Mandya, Shivamogga & Davanagere Districts of Karnataka under Ganga Kalyana Scheme for the year 2025-26 invited by the 2nd respondent at Annexures A, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16 & G. b. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."7
2. Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
The petitioner claims to be a proprietorship concern established in the year 1987 and is a duly registered small scale industry under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSME Act' for short) and is also recognized by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce and holds a valid ISI license and BEE star rating. The Government of Karnataka, in the year 1983, introduces a Scheme -'Ganga Kalyana Scheme', a fully subsidized irrigation scheme. The 2nd respondent/Vishwakarma Communities Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) issues a notice inviting tender for supply, installation and electrification (energization) of irrigation submersible pump sets with accessories suitable for 165 mm dia borewells under the Ganga 8 Kalyan Scheme. The petitioner is said to have emerged as the lowest bidder and an agreement for execution of the work order was underway in a tender notified by the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation. This is not the subject tender. On 21-08-2025 the 2nd respondent/Corporation issues a notice inviting tender for the same work. The said tender excludes partnership concerns/MSMEs from participating in the tender process and is said to have inflated financial turnover requirement in the tender. Being aggrieved by these two clauses of tender, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri Nitin Ramesh appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that exclusion of partnership concern/MSME from bidding in the tender process is grossly arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submits that earlier tenders allowed proprietorship/MSME concerns, partnership firms and Companies to participate in the tender. The sudden exclusion is said to have left the petitioner, which has been long standing competent bidder ineligible at the threshold itself. The other clause that the learned 9 counsel submit is a high financial turnover requirement in the impugned tender document, that in the last two financial years it should have a large turnover, takes away the right to participate in the tender. The learned counsel submits that being an MSME, the petitioner is entitled to reduction in transaction cost including the payment of earnest money deposit. The learned counsel submits that in none of the tendering Corporations under the Ganga Kalyana Scheme including the 2nd respondent had previously required BIS and BEE license for 6 HP 14-stage pump sets. However, the inclusion of BIS and BEE license requirement in the tender document deviates from the past practices and, therefore, is arbitrary.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar representing the Corporation would vehemently contend that the petitioner though claims to be an MSME, it is only qua those items there can be exemption of earnest money deposit. Submersible pump set procurement does not come within the ambit of 358 items mentioned in the notification. The learned senior counsel, insofar as other aspects are concerned, would submit that it is the Tender 10 Inviting Authority who has a right to impose those conditions that are necessary for execution of tender, which cannot mean that this Court could extend its protective arm under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to tinker with those clauses. The learned senior counsel submits that raising a bore well depth throughout the State is due to ground water levels are depleting rapidly, as a result of which higher head pumps are notified and the requirement of certificates of BIS and BEE cannot be said to be arbitrary. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is said to be an MSME under the MSME Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Government of India guidelines of the year 2012 for the purpose of benefits of MSME. He would seek to place reliance on Clauses 3.3, 10 and 11. The said clauses 11 of the Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSES) Order, 2012 reads as follows:
"3. Mandatory procurement from Micro Small and Enterprises. - (1) Every Central Ministry or Department or Public Sector Undertaking shall set an annual goal of procurement from Micro and Small Enterprises from the financial year 2012-13 and onwards, with the objective of achieving an overall procurement of minimum of 25 per cent, of total annual purchases of products produced and services rendered by Micro and Small Enterprises in a period of three years.
(2) Annual goal of procurement also includes sub-
contracts to Micro and Small Enterprises by large enterprises and consortia of Micro and Small Enterprises formed by National Small Industries Corporation.
(3) After a period of three years i.e. from 1st April 2015, overall procurement goal of minimum of 25 per cent shall be made mandatory.
(4) The Central Ministries, Departments and Public Sector Undertakings which fail to meet the annual goal shall substantiate with reasons to the Review Committee headed by Secretary (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises), constituted in Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, under this Policy.
... ... ...
10. Reduction in transaction cost. ─ To reduce transaction cost of doing business, Micro and Small Enterprises shall be facilitated by providing them tender sets free of cost, exempting Micro and Small Enterprises from payment of earnest money, adopting e-procurement to bring in transparency in tendering process and setting up a Grievance Cell in the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises.
11. Reservation of specific items for procurement. ─ To enable wider dispersal of enterprises in the country, particularly in rural areas, the Central Government Ministries or Departments or Public Sector Undertakings 12 shall continue to procure 358 items (Appendix) from Micro and Small Enterprises, which have been reserved for exclusive purchase from them. This will help in promotion and growth of Micro and Small Enterprises, including Khadi and village industries, which play a critical role in fostering inclusive growth in the country."
(Emphasis added) Clause 3(3) of Order 2012 mandates that after a period of three years from 01-04-2015, overall procurement goal of minimum of 25% to be given to MSME is mandatory. Clause 10 deals with reduction of transaction cost, which includes reduced earnest money deposit. Clause 11 deals with reservation of specific items for procurement. The specific items that are notified under the said order are about 358.
8. The policy quoted supra talks of reservation under Clause
11. The reservation is qua 358 items. It is an admitted fact that submersible pump sets procurement is not the one notified under the said notification. Therefore, the impugned tender is a tender that called for installation of submersible pumps. MSME cannot demand that reservation under the policy of 25% must be in favour 13 of MSME. Therefore, it stands as in other partnership concern, which the petitioner is. All other benefits that the petitioner is claiming as an MSME would flow from the afore-quoted enterprise order where there is no mention of submersible pump set.
9. The other ground of challenge is, that earlier tenders across Karnataka called for submersible pumps with 5 HP - 14 stage and now it is 6 HP - 14 stage. The allegation is that it is made to favour certain tenderers. The justification in the objections for the said change from 5 HP to 6 HP is as follows:
"THE PRACTICAL REASONS BEHIND THE INTRODUCTION OF OUR NEW 6 HP/14 STAGE SUBMERSIGLE PUMPSET, MODEL.
(a) Rising Borewell Depths: Groundwater levels across Karnataka are depleting rapidly, requiring higher head pumps. The 5 HP/14 Stage, though popular earlier, is now proving insufficient in many locations. The 6 HP/14 Stage is designed to address this gap effectively.
(c) Dual Substitution Advantage: It acts not only as a superior substitute for 5 HP/14 Stage, but also effectively replaces the 7.5 HP/12 Stage. Farmers who earlier had to shift to 7.5 HP models can now opt for 6 HP achieving the same performance at a lower investment and operating cost.
(d) Economical in Installation Cabling: 6 HP pumps can run efficiently on 2.5 sq. mm cable, whereas 7.5 HP requires 4 sq. mm cable, which is nearly double in cost.14
Starter & accessories: Starters and protection devises for 7.5 HP are more expensive. With 6 HP, farmers save considerably on overall installation cost.
(e) Energy Efficiency: 6 HP consumes significantly less power compared to 7.5 HP, reducing the electricity bill and making it more suitable for rural areas with limited power supply.
5. Farmer-Friendly Model: The 6 HP has become widely recognized in the market as the "Farmer's Choice"
because: It balances affordability, efficiently, and performance. It is suitable for most borewell depths encountered in Karnataka. It offers farmers the flexibility to avoid both the limitations of 5 HP and the high costs of 7.5 HP models.
(f) Market Acceptance: The 6 HP model is already well accepted and loved across Karnataka, proving its relevance and demand. It stands as the most practical and sustainable choice for today's ground water conditions. In conclusion, the introduction of the 6 HP/14 stage model is a timely and farmer-oriented decision. It provides a balanced, economical and technically superior solution, addressing the challenges of lowering ground water levels while reducing installation and operating costs."
The objections of the Corporation are completely acceptable, as it is settled principle of law that this Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts like the Tender Inviting Authority and decide whether calling for tenders for 5 HP/14 stage matter is necessary or a 6 HP/14 stage matter would be necessary. These are aspects which the Tender Inviting Authority is entitled to prescribe owing to the necessity. The necessity is what is 15 indicated hereinabove. Therefore, none of the grounds urged by the petitioner would hold any water in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. CENTRE FOR AVIATION POLICY, SAFETY & RESEARCH (CAPSR)1, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
"27. Even otherwise, even on merits also, the High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the eligibility criteria/tender conditions mentioned in the respective RFPs, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. As per the settled position of law, the terms of the Invitation to Tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Government/tenderer/tender making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender.
28. While considering the scope and ambit of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with respect to judicial scrutiny of the eligibility criteria/tender conditions, few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to, which are as under:
29. In the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier (supra), in paragraph 8, this Court observed and held as under:
"8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly recognise that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1334 16 of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government.
All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor- made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So also, the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process."
30. In the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (supra), after considering the law on the judicial scrutiny with respect to tender conditions, ultimately it is concluded in paragraph 23 as under:
"23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited;17
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government."
31. In the aforesaid decision, it is further observed that the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere. It is further observed that the courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgment, holds that conditions of tender unless found to be grossly arbitrary, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should be loathe to interfere.
1810. In the result, the petition lacking in merit, stands rejected.
Interim order of any kind operating shall stand dissolved.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ