Karnataka High Court
M/S Mahavir Submersibles Pvt Ltd vs The 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.108776 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.108777 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.108776 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
DUKE PUMPING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.56/5B, ROOM NO.5, 2ND FLOOR,
NANDI TOWERS, AVK COLLEGE ROAD,
2ND MAIN, P.J.EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
BASAVARAJA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., AND
SRI RANGANATH R., ADVOCATES)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA VISHWAKARMA COMMUNITIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
NO.16/D, 4TH FLOOR, DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN,
MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, AND SRI ARUN GOUDA, ADVOCATES FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; II. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION / TENDER BID (ANNEXURE-G) BEARING NO. KVCDCL/2025-26/WS/WORK-INDENT9, WITHOUT DISQUALIFYING IT FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS NOT SUBMITTED/PRODUCED THE B.E.E.(BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY) CERTIFICATE OF 2 MODEL OF PUMP-SET (6HP/14 STAGE AND 17.5HP/26 STAGE) ALONG WITH ITS APPLICATION, IN 3 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IF IT IS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE; III. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER STRIKING DOWN THE IMPUGNED PARAGRAPH NO.2 OF THE AFFIDAVIT PRESCRIBED AS PART OF ADDENDUM-2 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-E) AS BEING ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 21/08/2025 (ANNEXURE-A); IV. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER STRIKING DOWN THE RESTRICTION REGARDING AWARD OF MAXIMUM OF 5 PACKAGES ONLY, AS IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT SERIAL NO.27 OF 'PRE-BID QUERIES -REPLIES OF SUBMERSIBLE PUMP SET TENDERS' (MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 'ADDENDUM- I') (ANNEXURE-C) AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD OF ALL PACKAGES THAT IT HAS APPLIED TO, IF IT IS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN WRIT PETITION No.108777 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
M/S. MAHAVIR SUBMERSIBLES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT INDUSTIRAL PLOT NO.84, KANABARAGI INDUSTRIAL AREA KANABARAGI VILLAGE, KANABARAGI HOBLI BELAGAVI - 590 015 REPRESENTED BY ITS 4 AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SUBASH S., ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRITHVEESH M. K., AND SRI RANGANATH R., ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA VISHWAKARMA COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED NO.16/D, 4TH FLOOR, DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, AND SRI ARUN GOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; II. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION /TENDER BID (ANNEXURE-G) BEARING NO.KVCDCL / 2025-26 / WS / WORK-INDENT8 WITHOUT 5 DISQUALIFYING IT FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS NOT SUBMITTED / PRODUCED THE B.E.E. (BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY) CERTIFICATE OF 1 MODEL OF PUMP-SET (6HP/14 STAGE) ALONG WITH ITS APPLICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IF IT IS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE; III. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER STRIKING DOWN THE IMPUGNED PARAGRAPH NO.2 OF THE AFFIDAVIT PRESCRIBED AS PART OF ADDENDUM 2 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-E) AS BEING ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 21/08/2025 (ANNEXURE-A); IV. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER STRIKING DOWN THE RESTRICTION REGARDING AWARD OF MAXIMUM OF 5 PACKAGES ONLY, AS IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT SERIAL NO.27 OF 'PRE-BID QUERIES- REPLIES OF SUBMERSIBLE PUMP SET TENDERS' (MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 'ADDENDUM-I') (ANNEXURE-C) AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD OF ALL PACKAGES, SUBJECT TO THEIR ELIGIBILITY, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
6CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners, in both these cases, call in question a solitary tender process notified by Government under the 'Ganga Kalyana Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme' for short) for the purpose of supply, installation and commissioning of submersible pumpsets with accessories suitable for 165 mm dia borewells in 17 packages District wise.
2. Heard Sri M.K. Prithveesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.2.
W.P.No.108777 OF 2025:
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
3.1. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 involved in the manufacture of submersible 7 pumps and related products and claims to have vast experience in digging borewells, as it claims to have participated in several tenders invited by every Corporation in the State of Karnataka. In the year 1983 the Government of Karnataka introduces 'Ganga Kalyana Scheme', a subsidized irrigation scheme where borewell pumps and electrification are provided to marginal and small farmers belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Minorities living in rural areas. The Scheme aims at providing irrigation facilities through drilling borewells followed by installation of pumpsets and accessories. Under the said Scheme, the 2nd respondent/Karnataka Vishwakarma Communities Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for short) issues a notice inviting tender on 21-08-
2025 on the Karnataka public procurement portal, an online portal encompassing 11 Corporations for supply, installation and commissioning of submersible pumpsets, with accessories suitable for 165 mm dia borewells. It was for 17 packages. On 04-09-2025 a pre-bid meeting was held by the 2nd respondent, on which day the bidders including the petitioner are said to have requested for certain clarification and thereafter by a communication dated 8 17-09-2025 the petitioner seeks extension of time to submit Bureau of Energy Efficiency ('BEE') certificate in terms of the necessity in the notification.
3.2. On 19-09-2025 the Corporation replies to the pre-bid query by issuing an addendum. On 29-09-2025 comes the second addendum with a revised format of an affidavit to be submitted by the bidder. The affidavit was with the condition regarding non-black listing being relaxed. The modification was to the effect that the bidders who may be black listed or debarred by any other State Government other than Karnataka or the Union Government are now allowed to participate. The petitioner is said to have applied for issuance of Bureau of Indian Standards ('BIS') certificate and BEE certificate which is said to have been approved by the Competent Authority on 26-09-2025 and the last date for submission of the bid was 29-09-2025. 27-09-2025 and 28-09-2025 were Saturday and Sunday. Therefore, the averment in the petition is that the petitioner could not physically submit BEE certificate.
93.3. The petitioner then submits the tender bid in respect of 5 packages enclosing copy of BEE file transfer status. By then a writ petition in Writ Petition No.107034 of 2025 was pending consideration at the hands of this Court, wherein the participation in the tender had not been called in question, but certain tender conditions. The petitioner is before the Court raising a challenge to several clauses of the tender on the score that they are arbitrary.
W.P.No.108776 OF 2025:
4. The petitioner, in this petition, is also a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is aggrieved of the very same clauses in the notice inviting tender as urged in the companion petition.
5. The learned counsel Sri M.K. Prithveesh appearing for the petitioners in both these cases would urge 5 grounds to buttress his challenge to the tender notification. The learned counsel submits that relaxation provided at point No.2 of the affidavit format under Addendum-2 without modifying certain clauses is illegal. The 10 learned counsel submits that relaxation of black-listing criteria is detrimental to any tender process; non-furnishing of BEE certificate along with the tender cannot disqualify the petitioner. There is no rationale to restrict a tenderer for allotment of 5 packages as against 17 packages to which he may qualify. Clause-8 of the tender notification that the tender capacity must be more than the total estimated value of the facilities put to tender is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equivalence in prior work experience that is now mandated is only to help a particular tenderer. Therefore, the entire process is smacked by mala fides, as repeated changes/modifications in the critical eligibility conditions, that too in the form of replies to the bidder queries is arbitrary exercise of power.
6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the 2nd respondent/Corporation takes this Court through the documents appended to the statement of objections or the averments made therein and would submit his reply on all the grounds. The relaxation provided is to include bidders to have a 11 greater clarity. If they are black-listed anywhere in India or by the Union of India, they would not get the eligibility; BEE certificate is crucial for energy consuming products, as it confirms compliance with prescribed energy efficiency standards, which is mandatory.
The award of 5 packages limit to eligible bidders would be determined on the financial turnover capacity. A bidder who would get 17 packages may not be financially sound to execute the work.
The clause adopting the minimum to 5 packages is administratively sound and realistic. The petitioners have misconstrued the concept of work done experience. The tender exclusively requires prior experience in the supply, installation and commissioning of submersible pump sets and how that clause would become arbitrary is the submission of the learned senior counsel. Insofar as alteration/modification after issuance of tender notification is a permissible power under Rule 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (KTPP Rules), which clearly stipulates procedure for issuing clarifications to tender document.
The Rule specifies that after uploading tender document by the tenderer and before opening the tender, clarification, corrigendum 12 and addendum are all permissible exercise of power. The learned senior counsel seeks dismissal of the petitions.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The Backward Classes Welfare Department under which several corporations are formed, the 2nd respondent is one such.
Under the said Scheme, the 2nd respondent issues a notice inviting tender for the following purpose:
"Supply, installation and commissioning of submersible pumps sets with accessories suitable for 165 mm dia bore wells in various locations in Belagavi District of Karnataka under Ganga Kalyana Scheme."
The pre-bid meetings and queries were also notified in the notice inviting tender. The petitioners participates in the pre-bid meeting.
It had some queries. The pre-bid meeting queries were answered and addendum or corrigendum was issued to the tender 13 notification. The addendum or the corrigendum is what is now called in question by the petitioners in both these cases.
9. The corrigendum or addendum would go this way. The tender notification was initially issued wherein four clauses were as follows:
"1. The last date for submission of bids/applications is 22.09.2025;
2. At clause No.(4) of the General Conditions at paragraph II of the Tender Notification, the Bidders/OEMS are permitted to bid for maximum of five (5) packages only;
3. In respect of supply of 'Submersible Pump sets with Motor', the required specification is that the Submersible pump set model should have 4 or 5 star rating certificate from BEE - 5/10, 6/14 Stage; 7.5/12, 7.5/15, 7.5/20 stage; 10/20, 10/30 stage 12.5/20, 12.5/30 stage, 15/30, 15/35 stage, 17.5/26, 17.5/35 stage; 20/30, 20/40 stage: (BEE is "Bureau of Energy Efficiency");
4. Clause 2 of Part-II of the Tender Document (Qualification Criteria of the OEM/Bidders) mandates prior experience of similar work of submersible pump supply installation and commission."14
On 04-09-2025 pre-bid meeting is held and in the pre-bid meeting the following changes are brought in by way of addendum dated 19-09-2025. The addendum-1 brings in these changes:
"1. An affidavit format is now prescribed in the addendum which, in substance, prohibits applications from bidders who have been blacklisted or debarred by any Central Government / State Government / Semi-Government / PSU / Autonomous Body / Local Authority or any other public agency in India or abroad as on date of submission of the affidavit.
This restriction is in tune with the General Instructions to OEM/Bidders which is found in Clause 7(iv), Paragraph-II, Part-I of the Tender Notification dated 21-08-2025.
-- -- --
ADDENDUM
The bidders are advised to submit the Affidavit in the below mentioned format.
Affidavit for Not Blacklisted/Debarment/Pending Cases (On Non-Judicial Stamp Paper of appropriate value duly notarized) AFFIDAVIT I, We, .........................(Name of the Authorized Signatory), Son/daughter of ................................,aged about ..................years, residing at ....................,being the (Proprietor/Partner/Director/Authorized Signatory) of M/s................................, (Name of the Bidder/Firm/Company) having its registered office at ......................, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:15
1. That I/We am/are authorized to submit this affidavit on behalf of M/s....................for participation in Tender No............................, issued by.................................
(Department/Authority).
2. That M/s....................has not been blacklisted or debarred by any Central Government / State Government / Semi-Government / PSU / Autonomous Body / Local Authority or any other public agency in India or abroad as on date of submission of this affidavit.
3. That there are no pending cases, proceedings or investigations against the bidder or its directors / partners / proprietor in any Court of law or before any regulatory / statutory authority which may debar us from participating in this tender or impact our contractual obligations.
4. That if at any time it is found that the above declarations are false, misleading, or incorrect, our bid shall be liable for rejection and/or contract, if awarded, shall be liable for termination without prejudice to any other action(s) as may be taken by the authority as per law.
Verification:
I/We, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my / our knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified at............(Place) on this .................day of........20 DEPONENT (Signature of Authorized Signatory with seal) Name.....................
Designation.........
Firm/Company.........
Attested by Notary Public 16 (With seal & Registration Number) Sd/-
Managing Director, Vishwakarma Communities Development Corporation Bengaluru."
On 26-09-2025 comes addendum-2. Addendum-2 brings in the following changes:
"ADDENDUM-2 Point-1:
Sl Bid Document Clause To be read as
No
1. PART-I GENERAL PART-I GENERAL
INFORMATION: INFORMATION:
2. Bidder means pump set 2. Bidder means pump set
manufacturing agencies i.e., manufacturing agencies i.e.,
Company/Firm/Partnership Sole Proprietorship or
Firm of a Submersible Pump Company/Firm/Partnership
Set Manufacturer (OEM). Firm of a Submersible Pump
Set Manufacturer (OEM).
2. II. General Instructions to II. General Instructions to
the OEM/Bidders. the OEM/Bidders.
1.The OEM/Bidders must be a 1.The OEM/Bidders must be a
company/firm registered sole Proprietorship or
under the Company Act company/firm registered
1956/2013 or Partnership Firm under the Company Act
registered under Partnership 1956/2013 or Partnership Firm
Act. registered under Partnership
Act.
Point-2:
17
The Affidavit Format issued under Addendum dated 19.09.2025 stands deleted. Bidders are hereby advised to consider the revised Affidavit Format provided under the ADDENDUM-2 and submit their bids accordingly. All other clarifications issued under the Addendum dated 19-09-2025 shall remain valid.
The bidders are advised to submit the Affidavit in the below mentioned format.
Affidavit for Not Blacklisted/Debarment (On Non-Judicial Stamp Paper of appropriate value duly notarized) AFFIDAVIT I/We, .........................(Name of the Authorized Signatory), Son/daughter of ................................,aged about ..................years, residing at ....................,being the (Proprietor/Partner/Director/Authorized Signatory) of M/s................................, (Name of the Bidder/Firm/Company) having its registered office at ......................, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. That I/We am/are authorized to submit this affidavit on behalf of M/s....................for participation in Tender No............................, issued by................................. (Department/Authority).
2. That M/s....................has not been blacklisted or debarred by any Government Departments in Karnataka as on date of submission of this affidavit.
3. That if at any time it is found that the above declarations are false, misleading, or incorrect, our bid shall be liable for rejection and/or contract, if awarded, shall be liable for termination without prejudice to any other action(s) as may be taken by the authority as per law.18
Verification:
I/We, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified at............(Place) on this .................day of........20 DEPONENT (Signature of Authorized Signatory with seal) Name.....................
Designation.........
Firm/Company.........
Attested by Notary Public (With seal & Registration Number) Sd/-
Managing Director, Vishwakarma Communities Development Corporation Bengaluru."
(Emphasis added at each instance) The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the aforesaid addenda. The first addendum is with change in the affidavit format as noted supra. A tenderer who has been black listed or debarred by the Central Government or any State Government or any public agency in India or abroad, as on the date, has to file an affidavit. Now it is changed to those who have suffered blacklisting in Karnataka or Union of India. Likewise, the tender was issued for 17 packages. A 19 tenderer is now permitted to bid for a maximum of 5 packages. The certificates that are necessary now are BEE and BIS. If a tenderer does not submit the said certificates as on the last date of submission of application, he is disqualified and prior work experience for similar work is mandatory.
10. It is ununderstandable as to how these clauses are tailor made to suit any tenderer. They are general clauses which require the tenderer to comply for execution of the tender. The justification to each of the grounds is succinctly brought out by the 2nd respondent in its statement of objections ground-wise. I deem it appropriate to paraphrase the said justification by the 2nd respondent/Corporation which reads as follows:
"Under the rule 21 of Karnataka High Court writ proceedings rules respondent no 2 in the above case begs to submit as follows:
The present writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondent No 2 to consider the petitioner application/tender bid, raising the following contentions WRIT PETITION GROUNDS / REMARKS/REPLY CONTENTIONS The Affidavit format issued under
1. Firstly, the relaxation provided Addendum-2 was specifically at point No.2 of the affidavit provided for the declarations 20 Format under Addendum-2, required to be submitted by bidders without modifying Clause 7(iv) at the time of bid submission. This paragraph II, Part I of the tender format was developed and circulated notification dated 21-08-2025, is in response to a request made by a wholly illegal bidder for greater clarity. As the petitioner himself indicates, Clause 7(iv) expressly states that bidders must declare whether they have been "blacklisted by any Government Department / Corporation, or have a history of poor performance or contract violations with this Corporation or other similar agencies, or if their performance with any other Government organisation was unsatisfactory due to delays in the execution of works."
Accordingly, the issuance of a standardised affidavit format served to clearly communicate the exact declaration expected from all bidders and to ensure uniformity, transparency, and compliance with the tender conditions. Therefore, the action taken by the Authority was not only appropriate but fully justified, as it enhanced procedural clarity and safeguarded the integrity of the bidding process.
2. Secondly, the petitioner cannot A BEE certificate is crucial for be ousted from the zone of energy-consuming products as it consideration on the score that the confirms compliance with Petitioner did not submit the BEE prescribed energy-efficiency certificate along with its standards, reduces electricity application/bid document. costs for consumers, enhances customer confidence, and serves as a mandatory prerequisite for market entry. Under the Energy Conservation Act, 2001 and the Standard & Labelling (S&L) Scheme, failure by manufacturers to adhere to BEE norms can result in significant legal consequences, including 21 monetary penalties, suspension or cancellation of licence, and seizure or prohibition of non-
compliant products.
From a market-access perspective, BEE-rated appliances are widely preferred by institutional buyers, government procurement agencies, and retail consumers, making the certification a key factor in establishing trust and competitive advantage. Further, without valid BEE certification for notified products, sale or distribution is legally prohibited, and non-compliant items may be removed or banned from the market.
Therefore, BEE certification is not merely a technical formality but a statutory obligation rooted in the Energy Conservation Act.
Non-compliance exposes manufacturers to serious legal, financial, operational, and reputational risks. Compliance with BEE norms is essential to ensure lawful participation in the market, safeguard consumer interests, and support India's broader energy-conservation climate-responsibility objectives.
In light of the aforementioned requirements, obtaining BEE certification during the tender process is both necessary and justified. Accordingly, the tender-inviting authority has rightly sought BEE certificates from bidders to fulfil the statutory mandate and to ensure that beneficiaries receive only 22 certified and compliant submersible pump sets.
3.Thirdly, there is no criteria The award of the five packages to mentioned regarding allotment of 5 eligible bidders shall be determined packages to a bidder, despite such based on their financial turnover bidder being qualified for all 17 capacity and their manufacturing packages. capability for submersible pump sets. With regard to financial capacity, the tender-inviting authority evaluates the bidder's turnover for the last five financial years to ensure that the bidder possesses adequate financial strength to undertake and supply the submersible pump sets across multiple packages.
In terms of manufacturing capacity, third-party inspection is conducted as part of the technical evaluation, and compliance with this requirement is mandatory for all bidders. This is because the third-
party verification process provides prima facie evidence of the bidder's manufacturing facilities and their ability to meet the supply requirements for multiple packages.
This assessment ensures that only those bidders with sufficient production capability and infrastructure entrusted with the execution of the awarded packages.
Therefore, even if a bidder qualifies for more than five packages, limiting the award to a maximum of five is a rational, justified, and administratively sound decision. It ensures realistic capacity utilisation, prevents vendor monopolisation, mitigates operational and supply risks, maintains competition, strengthens quality control, and ultimately safeguards timely and reliable delivery of pump sets to all 23 beneficiaries.
4. Fourthly, the sole criteria as The reason being adopting said per Clause 8 of Part II of the provision is because, even if a tender notification, is that the bidder qualifies for more than five tender capacity must be more than packages, limiting the award to a the total estimated value of the maximum of five is a rational, facilities put to tender. Therefore, justified, and administratively sound limiting / restricting the awarding decision. It ensures realistic capacity of tender to only 5 packages is utilisation, prevents vendor and contrary to the aforesaid provision monopolisation, mitigates in the tender notification. operational and supply risks, maintains competition, strengthens quality control, and ultimately safeguards timely and reliable delivery of pump sets to all beneficiaries.
5.Fifthly, in terms of Clause 2 of The Petitioner has fundamentally Part II of the Tender document misconstrued the concept of work- (Qualification Criteria of the done experience. The tender OEM/Bidders) and Rule 27 of the explicitly requires prior experience in KTTP Rules, Prior work experience the supply, installation, and for similar work is mandatory. commissioning of submersible pump However, of the prior work sets accompanied by valid BEE experience that is required is of certificates. The Petitioner's similar work, then as per the contention that a BEE certificate Paragraph 15 of the statement of issued for one model can be used objections filed by the Respondent for a different model is contrary to No.2 in the Writ Petition No. the statutory framework governing 107034/2025, The 6HP/14 Stage BEE certification. If such an Pump set model being interpretation were permissible, complimentary to 7.5 HP/15 Stage there would be no necessity for BEE pump set model, the BEE to issue separate certificates for certificate and prior work each model. The very fact that BEE experience of the said model, must grants distinct certificates for be accepted by the Respondent different models clearly establishes No.2 that model-specific certification is mandatory.
It is also prima facie evident that the Petitioner does not possess the requisite BEE certificates for its manufacturing facilities and is attempting to create ambiguity and secure eligibility in the tender process by seeking post-bid 24 relaxation through the Hon'ble Court. Such a request cannot be entertained, as it would undermine the principles of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment that govern the tender process.
Accordingly, the Petitioner's plea deserves to be rejected in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the procurement procedure.
6.Sixthly, the impugned action of It is imperative to bring to the the Respondent No.2 is tainted notice of the Hon'ble Court that Rule with malafides. From the sequence 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in of events, it would appear that the Public Procurements (KTPP) Rules conditions of Tender are altered / clearly stipulates the procedure for modified much after issuance of issuing clarifications to tender the Tender notification, solely to documents. The Rule specifies that favour certain Bidders at the at any time after uploading the instance of interested parties. tender documents and before opening of the tender, the Tender Inviting Authority may make changes, modifications, or amendments to the tender documents. Such changes must be notified on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal through the issue of Addendum, Corrigendum, or Clarifications, and these shall form an integral part of the original tender document.
In strict adherence to these provisions, the Tender Inviting Authority has duly and diligently performed its duties.
However, the Petitioner has made false and misleading allegations against the Tender Inviting Authority before the Hon'ble Court, despite the fact that the Authority has fully complied with all procedural requirements under the KTPP Rules. Therefore, on this ground alone -namely, the deliberate attempt to mislead the 25 Hon'ble Court- the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Lastly, The Entire Tender Process From the above facts and fair tender right from the issuance of the process carried out by the Tender Notification dated Respondent No.2 there is no scope 21/08/2025 is hit by arbitrariness of arbitrariness. on the part of the Respondent No.2 Hence, this petition.
Some more ground or grounds will be urged at the time of argument.
WHERFORE - In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the respondent No. 2 most humbly pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity."
The only examination is, whether the Rules permit the change or the addenda now brought in. Rule 14 of the KTPP Rules reads as follows:
"14. Clarification to tender documents:- At any time after the issue of the tender documents and before the opening of the tender, the tender Inviting authority may make any changes, modifications or amendments to the tender documents and shall send intimation of such change to all those who have purchased the original tender documents."
(Emphasis supplied) Rule 14 permits change or clarification by way of addendum or clarification to the tender document before it could be opened. All 26 the clarifications, in the case at hand, are before the tender submitted could be opened. Except the said independent examination, the justification of the Corporation to every ground of the tender merit acceptance.
11. It is trite law that this Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts to tinker with every clause of the tender, as it is the duty of the Tender Inviting Authority to get what it wants. Unless the conditions imposed are so arbitrary that are palpable and demonstrable, this Court would not, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, obliterate such tenders. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to 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 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1334 27 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 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 28 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;
(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, 29 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)
12. In the light of aforesaid discussion and the judgment of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, the petitions lacking in merit stand rejected.
Interim order of any kind operating shall stand dissolved.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS