Karnataka High Court
M/S Delicia Chemicals vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
WP No. 4144 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4145 of 2025
WP No. 4146 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4144 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 4145 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 4146 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
IN WP No. 4144/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S DELICIA CHEMICALS
A COMANY REGD. UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF PARTNERSHIP
ACT 1932, HAVING OFFICE AT
NO 118/1, 1ST FLOOR 5TH MAIN ROAD
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU 560018
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI SRI T A S MURTHY
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
VIKAS SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU 560001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
WP No. 4144 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4145 of 2025
WP No. 4146 of 2025
2. THE KARNATAKA SOAPS AND
DETERGENTS LIMITED
NO 27 INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB
BENGALURU -PUNE HIGHWAY
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560055
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. GANGADHAR R GURUMATH., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MANJULA D., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE
INVITING TENDER PRODUCED AT ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO CONDITIONS STIPULATED AT SL.NO.6, 10, 11,
12, 13 AND 14 OF APPENDIX A AS IT STOOD AMENDED BY 3
ADDENDUMS ISSUED ON 22.01.2025, 03.02.2025 AND
06.02.2025 AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 4145/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S CHEMIXIL CORPORATION
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932
HAVING OFFICE AT NO 109
SHREESHTABUMI COMPLEX
K R ROAD, BENGALURU 560004
REP BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. B.S. GURURAJ
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
WP No. 4144 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4145 of 2025
WP No. 4146 of 2025
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE VIKAS SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU 560001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE KARNATAKA SOAPS
AND DETERGENTS LIMITED
NO 27 INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB
BENGALURU-PUNE HIGHWAY
RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU 560055
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. GANGADHAR R GURUMATH., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MANJULA D., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE INVITING TENDER PRODUCED AT ANNX-A IN SO
FAR AS IT RELATES TO CONDITIONS STIPULATED AT
SL.NO.6, 10, 11, 12, 13 AND 14 OF APPENDIX A AS IT
STOOD AMENDED BY 3 ADDENDUMS ISSUED ON
22.01.2025, 03.02.2025 AND 06.02.2025 AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 4146/2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S BANARI CONSTRUCTIONS
A COMPANY REGISETERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
WP No. 4144 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4145 of 2025
WP No. 4146 of 2025
NO 4, GIRIDARSHINI LAYHOUT
ALANAHALLI VILLAGE, T NARASIPURA ROAD
MYSORE 570001
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI C RAJU GOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKMARI GOWDA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU 560001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE KARNATAKA SOAPS AND
DETERGENTS LIMITED
NO 27, INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB
BENGALURU PUNE HIGHWAY
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU 560055
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. GANGADHAR R GURUMATH., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MANJULA D., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE INVITING TENDER PRODUCED AT ANNX-A IN SO
FAR AS IT RELATES TO CONDITIONS STIPULATED AT
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
WP No. 4144 of 2025
C/W WP No. 4145 of 2025
WP No. 4146 of 2025
SL.NO.6, 10, 11, 12, 13 AND 14 OF APPENDIX A AS IT
STOOD AMENDED BY 3 ADDENDUMS ISSUED ON
22.01.2025, 03.02.2025 AND 06.02.2025 AND ALSO
CLAUSE 3.2 OF APPENDIX N PRODUCED AT ANNX-E, F AND
G BEARING NO. KSDL/2024-25 INDO 582 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners in all these three writ petitions are
common and therefore the writ petitions are clubbed, heard
together and are being disposed of by this common order at the
stage of admission itself.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jayakumar.S.Patil,
appearing for the petitioners would take this Court to the
impugned tender more particularly to some of the conditions
contained in the impugned tender. It is pointed out from
clause-10 of the impugned tender that the tenderer should
have supplied the quantity usually not less than 80% of the
quantity in anyone of the last 3 years and 40% in respect of
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
MSE in any one of the last preceding 2 years; The tenderer
must have supplied satisfactorily at least average 30% of the
quantity similar to the type specified in the schedule of
requirements in any one of the last 3 years. Most importantly,
it is pointed out that a satisfactory performance letter for
having fulfilled the quantities as per Appendix-M to be
compulsory uploaded, otherwise bid will be rejected. Similarly
in clause-11 it is provided that if the bidder has defaulted to the
respondent KS & DL in past supplies, the bidder will not be
considered and the bid will be rejected. This according to the
learned Senior Counsel would be arbitrary and clearly directed
against the petitioners who have earlier supplied to the
respondent KS & DL. Learned Senior Counsel would submit
that it is permissible for this Court to entertain such a writ
petition, even if it is case of pre-bid tender.
3. Per contra learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Gangadhar R.
Gurumath appearing for the respondent - KS & DL submits that
the similar petitions were filed at the hands of some of the
bidders including all the three by the writ petitioner herein in
W.P. No.2400/2024. This Court considered similar grievances
and held that what would unmistakably emerge from the law
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
elucidated in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that
this Court would not interfere in any contract/tender unless it is
palpably or demonstrably arbitrary. It is on the touchstone of
the aforesaid principles the facts in the case on hand are
required to be considered. Having regard to similar conditions
which were under challenge before this Court, it was held that
it is un-understandable as to how this demand for quality can
be termed to be arbitrary or wanting to suit particular tenders.
Even if the petitioners are not eligible in terms of the tender
conditions, it cannot be said that the tender conditions are bad.
It was therefore held that a tenderer cannot seek the conditions
of tender to suit their eligibility.
4. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels on both
the sides and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds
that similar conditions imposed in the previous tender were
already under challenge before this Court, at the hands of the
petitioner. The only other conditions which did not find place in
the previous tender is possibly that the bidder, if had supplied
to the respondent KS & DL and if they are defaulted, they will
not be eligible and that therefore their bids would be rejected.
Another condition in similar vein is that a satisfactory certificate
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
had to be uploaded while receiving the same from the
respondent- KS & DL. Although it is not explicitly stated by the
learned Senior Counsel as to how this condition would come in
the way of the petitioner, nevertheless, it is obvious, since the
petitioners are suppliers to the respondent KS & DL and for
some reason if the respondents have held that the petitioners
are defaulters, then presumably no satisfactory certificate
would be issued by the respondents to the petitioners.
However, that by itself cannot be construed as a clause
designed to keep away the petitioners. This Court finds that
similar conditions have been imposed even in respect of any
other PSU to whom the bidders would have supplied the
material. It is found that such satisfactory certificate will have
to be obtained by the bidder even if such material have been
supplied to some other PSUs. Therefore it would be futile to
content that the said condition has been imposed only to keep
out the petitioners from the race.
5. Having regard to the law as found in the order of
the Co-ordinate Bench considering the case of the petitioners
earlier, interference at the hands of the Courts would be called
NC: 2025:KHC:7985
for only if the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the
tender conditions are palpably or demonstrably arbitrary.
6. This Court does not see any such condition which
can be held as arbitrary and designed to keep away certain
bidders. In that view of the matter the writ petitions fail and
are accordingly dismissed.
7. If the petitioner's technical bids have been rejected
at the hands of the respondents, the petitioners are at liberty
to question the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
RKA
