[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dive Netrani vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4947
WP No. 102776 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. 102776 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
DIVE NETRANI,
FLAT NO. 877/2B, SWATTU, TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
NEARBY RNS RURAL POLYTECHNIC, MAVALLI 2, UTTARA
KANNADA-581350,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. APURVA TUKARAM DURGEKAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O. NO. 114, SEA BIRD COLONY,
MUDGA, VTC AMDALLI, PO: AMDALLI,
SUB DIST: KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA-581 324.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAXMAN.T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AYUB
DESHNUR AND THE CHAIRMAN,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THE RIVER RAFTING AND WATER ADVENTURE
SPORTS MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
COMMITTEE (R), UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARAWAR-581 301.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY,
THE RIVER RAFTING AND WATER ADVENTURE,
SPORTS MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
COMMITTEE (R), UTTARA KANNADA,
DISTRICT: KARAWAR-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:4947
WP No. 102776 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.Laxman T.Mantagani., counsel for the petitioner,
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:
"a) Issue Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned tender notification bearing no.
PRA.E/U.Ni.Ka/Kaa/33/2025/26 dated 17.03.2026 issued by
the 3rd respondent vide ANNEXURE -A, in the interest of
justice.
b) 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.
c) Declare the Impugned tender conditions as arbitrary and
unconstitutional, particularly Short tender period, NOC
requirement, ownership and requirement of local office. Pre-
condition of equipment
d) PASS any such other suitable order/s as this Court deems
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the ends of justice and equity."
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4947
HC-KAR
Counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner 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
petitioner cannot have any grievance.
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4947
HC-KAR
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.
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 petitioner's
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4947
HC-KAR
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 petitioner 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.
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4947
HC-KAR
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
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4947
HC-KAR
In the present case, the petitioner has 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.
9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7
