Karnataka High Court
Aka Logistics Private Limited vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited on 4 June, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18877
WP No. 14525 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 14525 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. AKA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
1ST FLOOR, CHITRAKOOT,
230A, AJC BOSE ROAD,
KOLKATA - 700 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. PALATLA GANESH KUMAR
E: [email protected]
... PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
VIDYA G R SRI ARJUN RAO., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING
NO. 82, SHAKTI BHAVAN,
3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
E:[email protected]/
[email protected]
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18877
WP No. 14525 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (MINES)
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
E:[email protected] /
[email protected]
3. RAICHUR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN KARNATAKA POWER
CORPORATION LIMITED AND
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED,
HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED.
NO 3 PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA,
INDIA - 560 001
E: [email protected]
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
4. KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BROTHERS
(COAL SALES) LIMITED
A COMPANY EXISTING UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
I.C.P. ATRIA GREEN 163,
SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE ROAD,
KALIGHAT, KOLKATA,
WEST BENGAL,
INDIA - 700 026,
E:[email protected]
AND,
BRANCH OFFICE AT: THAPAR NIKETAN,
7/4, BRUNTON ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18877
WP No. 14525 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
M/S M.L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
TECHNICAL BID OF THE R-4 WAS NOT RESPONSIVE AND
HENCE THE R-4 WAS NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER THE NOTICE
INVITING TENDER BEARING NO. A1 M1 B3/SCCL-ARR-
CTA/YTPS/FEBRUARY 2025 (ANNEXURE-E) DTD. 04.02.2025
ISSUED BY R-1 TO R-3 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the
technical bid of respondent No.4 was not responsive and
not eligible under the notice inviting tender at
Annexure-'E' dated 04.02.2025. The petitioner has also
sought for setting aside of the financial bid of respondent
No.4 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as all actions
pursuant thereto. Further, the petitioner has sought for a
direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to proceed with
NC: 2025:KHC:18877
HC-KAR
consideration of the financial bid after excluding
respondent No.4 from the process.
2. It is the case made out by learned Senior
Counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa appearing on behalf of
petitioner that the fourth respondent's technical bid being
non-responsive/ineligible, the question of opening the
financial bid would not arise. It is further submitted that
once the technical bid is non-responsive, the question of
progressing to second stage would not arise.
3. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 would submit that
the interference by way of judicial review in such matters
at an intermediary stage when the final decision is not
taken by Tender Accepting Authority would render the writ
petition filed premature.
4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
Co-ordinate Bench in the case of NEC Technologies
India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. Shivamogga Smart City
NC: 2025:KHC:18877
HC-KAR
Limited, Shivamogga and Another reported in 2019
SCC OnLine Kar 4343 and also the decision of
Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sri G. Shankar v.
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited and Others
reported in ILR 2016 KAR 4790.
5. Sri Ajay J. Nandalike, learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.1 to 3 asserts that the evaluation by
way of initial examination under Rule 24 of the Karnataka
Transparency In Public Procurements Rules, 2000 ('the
Rules' for short) and under Rule 24(3), the result of such
initial examination, is still not final and a final decision
may be taken under Rule 26(1) by the Tender Accepting
Authority. It is submitted that the final decision under
Rule 26 by the Tender Accepting Authority would invest
the Tender Accepting Authority the substantive power to
go beyond the initial examination under Rule 24 of the
Rules.
6. Said submission is taken note of.
NC: 2025:KHC:18877
HC-KAR
7. Though learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner submits that such procedure as made
out by learned counsel for respondent Karnataka Power
Corporation would be contrary to the tender documents,
the stand of learned counsel by respondent No.3 is to be
taken to be an accepted procedure i.e., one flowing from
the Rules and needless to state that procedure under the
rules would even otherwise over-ride the procedure under
the tender, if it is in conflict with the statutory Rules.
8. Even otherwise, the Court is of the view that
interference at this stage may not be appropriate, as there
should be free-play permitted by the decision making
Authority and it is an accepted proposition that minor
variations in the procedure need not necessarily lead to
Court exercising power of interference by way of judicial
review.
9. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the
contentions of petitioner regarding defects in the technical
NC: 2025:KHC:18877
HC-KAR
bid of respondent No.4, are matters that could be taken
note of once the Tender Accepting Authority finally takes a
decision under Section 14 of the Act. All contentions of
the petitioner as raised in the writ petition are kept open.
10. The respondent Karnataka Power Corporation to
ensure that the procedure of making known the
acceptance of bids and the decision of Tender Accepting
Authority under Rule 26(2) of the Rules is to be
communicated as per the settled procedure.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with the
above said observations.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VGR
