[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
S K Prabhakar vs State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 40/2026 (GM-TEN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.38498/2025 (GM-FOR)
WRIT PETITION NO.39669/2025 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO.41/2026 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO.42/2026 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO.748/2026 (GM-TEN)
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA IN W.P.No. 40/2026
N
Location: BETWEEN :
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SRI ANANTHA PADMANABHA KINI
S/O K.VITTAL KINI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR,
R/AT SIRIGERE VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577211.
2. SRI PERUMAL T
S/O TIRUPATHI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT BHARATHI NAGARA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
HAIHOLE POST, NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577201.
3. SRI ABDUL MAJID S.M
S/O MAHABOOB SAB S.B
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT ELAHI MANSION
BOMMANAKATTE,
BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577301.
4. LOHITH KUMAR P
S/O PERUMAL T
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT BHARATHI NAGARA
HAIHOLE POST,
NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577201.
5. SRI KANTHARAJU
S/O APPAJI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT BAGESHPURA VILLAGE AND POST
ARASHIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DIST-573162.
6. SRI TEEKAPPA
S/O K SINGRIGOWDA
AGED 46 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
R/AT LAXMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
1ST CROSS, BARAMAPPA NAGARA
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
7. MOHAMED KHASIM
S/O MOHAMED MUNEER
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT 2ND CROSS, ANWAR COLONY
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577301.
8. SRI VENKATESH H.R
S/O B. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED 60 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT NEAR MARIKAMBA TEMPLE,
HUMCHADAKATTE,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA-577436.
9. SRI HAFIZULLA SHARIFF
S/O KHALEEL UR RAHMAN SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT 3RD CROSS, NEAR WATER TANK,
INDIRA NAGAR, BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577301.
10 . SHAFIQ AHAMED
S/O MOHAMMED MUSTHAQ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTORS
R/AT EIDGHA NAGARA
NEAR URDUSCHOOL,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
ANWAR COLONY EXTENSION
BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577301.
11 . JAVEED NOORUDDIN SYED
S/O N.K.SYED
AGED 53 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT 1ST CROSS,
OPP ST THOMAS COMMUNITY HALL
MISSION COMPOUND,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
12 . KHASHIM. YASEEN KHAN
S/O KHASHIM KHAN
AGED 52 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT NO.20/2 A P ROAD,
THREETHAHALLI
NEAR SEEBINAKERE,
SHIVAMOGGA-577432.
13 . K.M.FAROOQ JAHANGIR
S/O LATE KHAZI ABDUL AZIZ
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT LAKSHKAR MOHALLA
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI., SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI.K.V. VINOD KUMAR NAIDU., ADVOCATE)
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ROOM NO. 448, 4TH FLOOR,
GATE NO. 2, M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VANA VIKAS, 2ND FLOOR, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 560 003.
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
NEAR RTO OFFICE, DC COMPOUND,
SHIVAMOGGA 577201.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE
FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION,
NEAR RTO OFFICE, DC COMPOUND,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE
GENERAL A/W SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR
R1;
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
SRI. MURGESH V CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO
R4; SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI., ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADIGNG APPLICANT ON IA 2/2025)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
RE-TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 26.12.2025
(ANNEXURE A) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4,
BEARING NO. KA.A.AA.NI.NI/VIVYA/SHI MO/ S-5/
2025-26/1071; II. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FINALISE,
CONFIRM, AND GIVE EFFECT TO THE TENDER
PROCESS INITIATED UNDER THE E TENDER
NOTIFICATION DATED 07.11.2025, BY ISSUING THE
WORK ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AS
THE DECLARED L1 BIDDERS (ANNEXURE - B).
IN W.P.No. 38498/2025
BETWEEN :
1 . S K PRABHAKAR
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.6
MASTI COLONY
NEAR RTO OFFICE,
BANGARPET ROAD
KOLAR - 563 101.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
2 . MAHENDRA G
S/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2
BYPALLI ROAD GANESHPALYA
MULBAGAL, KOLAR - 563 131.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRY., SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SMT. BHANUPRIYA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
ROOM NO.448, 4TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.
2. KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VANA VIKASA, 2ND FLOOR, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560003.
3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
VANAVIKAS 5TH FLOOR,
18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560003.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CHIKKAMAGALURE DIVISION,
JINKEVANA, K M ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577101.
5. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
DHARWAD DIVISION,
FOREST COMPOUND,
NEAR K C PARK
DHARWAD - 580008.
6. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
SHIMOGA DIVISION,
NEAR RTO OFFICE, DC OFFICE
COMPOUND, SHIMOGA - 577201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE
GENERAL A/W SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR
R1; SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2
TO R6)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
ELIGIBILITY CRITERION REQUIRING EXPERIENCE OF
THREE YEARS WITH MPM OR KARNATAKA FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED OR
KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT CONTAINED IN THE
ADDENDUM CORRIGENDUM DATED 24.11.2025
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6
(ANNEXURES J, IN NO. KaSaPaSa;
KAANINI/ViVya/Ben.Vi/Maaraata/2025-26/681 DATED:
21.11.2025, ANNEXURE-K IN
NO.Sa:KAANINI/ViVya/Chi.Mu/A6/2025-26/525 dated
24.11.2025, ANNEXURE-L IN
NO.KAANINI/ViVya/Dha.Vi/B3 May.Ka & Sa. Sam.
E-Tender/2025-26/919 dated 21.11.2025 AND in
ANNEXURE- 'M' in No. Sa: KAANINI/ViVya/Shi. Mo/S-
5/2025-26/938 dated 20.11.2025;
B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT. ORDER OR DIRECTION
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT AND
ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
IMPUGNED TENDERS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR
OVERALL EXPERIENCE IN FORESTRY OPERATIONS,
FINANCIAL CAPACITY, AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE,
WITHOUT INSISTING ON PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH THE
SPECIFIED KARNATAKA ENTITIES
AS PER ANNEXURE-E IN NO. KFDC/DM/CKM/A6/EXT
& TRA 2025-26/492, DATED 07.11.2025 ANNEXURE-G
IN NO. KFDC/DM/DWD/B3/EXT & TRA/2025-26/825
DATED 10.11.2026 AND ANNEXURE-H IN NO.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
KFDC/DM/DWD/B3/EXT&TRA/2025-26/825 DATED
10.11.2026 AND ANNEXURE-H IN NO KFDC/DM/SMG
S.5/EXT & TRA/2025-26/892 DATED 07.11.2025;
C. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE TIME
FOR SUBMISSION OF BIDS AND POSTPONE THE
OPENING OF TECHNICAL BID AND FINANCIAL BID TO
ENABLE THE PETITIONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
TENDER, IN SO FOR PETITIONER IS CONCERN.
IN W.P.No. 39669/2025
BETWEEN :
ESTHUR NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE MATHAPPA,
R/AT ISTOOR VILLAGE,
BENDIGANAHALLI POST,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL - 562114
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
ROOM NO.448, 4TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VANA VIKAS, 2ND FLOOR, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560003.
3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE
FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
NEAR RTO OFFICE, DC COMPOUND,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.
4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
BANGALORE
VANA VIKAS, 2ND FLOOR,
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE GENRAL
A/W SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO
R4)
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RE-
TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 26.12.2025 (ANNX-A)
ISSUED BY R-2 BEARING
NO.KA.A.Aa.Ni.Ni/ViVya/Bem.Vi/Marata/2025-26/986;
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FINALISE CONFIRM,
AND GIVE EFFECT TO THE TENDER PROCESS
INITIATED UNDER THE E-TENDER NOTIFICATION
DATED 08.11.2025 BY ISSUING THE WORK ORDER IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND DECLARED L1
BIDDER (ANNX-B);
ALTERNATIVELY; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09.12.2025 AND
26.12.2025 (ANNX-F AND H).
IN W.P.No. 41/2026
BETWEEN :
1 . S K PRABHAKAR
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT WARD NO. 6,
MASTI COLONY, NEAR RTO OFFICE,
BANGARPET ROAD,
KOLAR-563101.
2 . MAHENDRA G
S/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
RESIDING AT NO 2, BYPALLI ROAD
GANESHPALYA,
MULBAGAL, KOLAR - 563131.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRY., SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SMT. BHANUPRIYA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ROOM NO. 448, 4TH FLOOR,
GATE NO. 2, M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VANA VIKAS, 2ND FLOOR, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
NEAR RTO OFFICE, DC COMPOUND,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
VANAVIKAS 5TH FLOOR, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE KARNATAKA -560003.
5. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
CHIKKAMAGALURE DIVISION,
JINKEVANA, KM ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577101.
6. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
DHARWAD DIVISION,
FOREST COMPOUND,
NEAR K C PARK
DHARWAD-580008.
7. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA FOREST D
EVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
SHIMOGA DIVISION,
NEAR RTO OFFICE,
DC OFFICE COMPOUND,
SHIMOGA-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE
GENERAL A/W SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR
R1; SRI. MURGESH V CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2
TO R7)
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ELIGIBILITY CRITERION
REQUIRING EXPERIENCE OF ONE YEARS WITH MPM
OR KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED OR KARNATAKA FOREST
DEPARTMENT CONTAINED IN THE RE-E-TENDER
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 FOR
BENGALURU DIVISION IN NO.
KFDC/DM/BNG/SALES/EXT AND TRA/CALL-2/2025-
26/986 DATED 26.12.2025 AS ANNEXURE P, RE-E-
TENDER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5
FOR CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION IN NO.
KFDC/DM/CKM/A6/2025-26/492/CALL-2, DATED
26.12.2025 AS ANNEXURE-R, RE-E-TENDER
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 FOR
DHARAWAD DIVISION IN NO. DATED
KFDC/DM/DWD/B3/EXT AND TRA/2025-26/1092
26.12.2026 ANNEXURE-S AND RE-E-TENDER
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.7 FOR
SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION IN NO.KA. A NI NI/VIVYA/SHI.
MO/S-5/CALL-2/2025-26/1071 IS PRODUCED AND
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-T IN RESPECT TO
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERN; B ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO PERMIT AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPUGNED TENDERS ON THE
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
BASIS OF THEIR OVERALL EXPERIENCE IN FORESTRY
OPERATIONS, FINANCIAL CAPACITY, AND TECHNICAL
COMPETENCE, WITHOUT INSISTING ON PRIOR
EXPERIENCE WITH THE SPECIFIED KARNATAKA
ENTITIES; C. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE TIME
FOR SUBMISSION OF BIDS AND POSTPONE THE
OPENING OF TECHNICAL BID AND FINANCIAL BID TO
ENABLE THE PETITIONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
TENDER.
IN W.P.No. 42/2026
BETWEEN :
1. SRI CHANDRANAIK
S/O BHAJYANAIK
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI, KOMMARAGHATTA
HASSAN TALUK AND DIST-573162.
2. SRI TEEKAPPA
S/O K SINGRIGOWDA
AGED 46 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT LAXMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
1ST CROSS, BARAMAPPA NAGARA
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
3. SRI ANANTHA PADMANABHA KINI
S/O K.VITTAL KINI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR,
R/AT SIRIGERE VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577211.
4. SRI PERUMAL T
S/O TIRUPATHI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT BHARATHI NAGARA
HAIHOLE POST,
NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577201.
5. SRI KANTHARAJU
S/O APPAJI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT BAGESHPURA VILLAGE AND POST
ARASHIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DIST-573162.
6. SRI NOORULLA SHARIFF
S/O KAHLEEL UR REHAMAN SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT 1ST MAIN ROAD,
INDIRA NAGARA,
OPP VAGESH TAKIES BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA-577301.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
7. SRI HAFIZULLA SHARIFF
S/O KHALEEL RAHMAN SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT 3RD CROSS, NEAR WATER TANK,
INDIRA NAGAR, BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577301.
8. SRI ABDUL MAJID S.M
S/O MAHABOOB SAB S.B
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT ELAHI MANSION
BOMMANAKATTE,
BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577301.
9. SHAFIQ AHAMED
S/O MOHAMMED MUSTHAQ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTORS
R/AT EIDGHA NAGARA
NEAR URDUSCHOOL,
ANWAR COLONY EXTENSION
BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577301.
10 . SRI KARTHIK T.M
S/O MUDALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT SRININDHI 2ND MAIN,
3RD CROSS, HEMAVATHI NAGAR
HASSAN-573202.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
11 . MOHAMED KHASIM
S/O MOHAMED MUNEER
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT 2ND CROSS, ANWAR COLONY
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577301.
12 . SRI VENKATESH H.R
S/O B. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED 60 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT NEAR MARIKAMBA TEMPLE,
HUMCHADAKATTE,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA-577436.
13 . SRI MOHAMMED GHOUSE
S/O ABDUL AZIZ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT BYPASS ROAD,
NEAR NEW BRIDGE, SAVAI PALYA,
DODDAPETE POST
SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
14 . SRI MOHAMMED AHAMED
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
FOREST CONTRACTOR
R/AT BYPASS ROAD,
NEAR NEW BRIDGE, SAVAI PALYA,
DODDAPETE POST
SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI., SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. K.V. VINOD KUMAR NAIDU., ADVOCATE)
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT, REP. BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ROOM NO. 448, 4TH FLOOR,
GATE NO. 2, M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VANA VIKAS, 2ND FLOOR, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
NEAR RTO OFFICE, DC COMPOUND,
SHIVAMOGGA- 577201.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION,
CHIKKAMAGALURU, JINKE VANA,
K.M.ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE
GENERAL A/W SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
R1; SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2
TO R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE RE-TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED
26.12.2025 (ANNEXURE A) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO. 4, BEARING NO. KA.A.AA.NI.NI/ VIVYA/CHI. MA/S-
6/2025-26/492 CALL 2; II. ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
FINALISE, CONFIRM, AND GIVE EFFECT TO THE
TENDER PROCESS INITIATED UNDER THE E TENDER
NOTIFICATION DATED 07.11.2025, BY ISSUING THE
WORK ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AS
THE DECLARED L1 BIDDERS (ANNEXURE - B).
IN W.P.No. 748/2026
BETWEEN :
PRAVEEN KUMAR. V
S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FOREST CONTRACTOR,
M/S. TANISH ENTERPRISES,
R/AT ESTHUR VILLAGE,
BENGIGANAHALLI POST,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL,
BANGALORE-562122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ROOM NO. 448,
4TH FLOOR
GATE NO. 2,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE KARNATAKA STATE
FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VANA VIKASA,
2ND FLOOR, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560003.
3 . THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
NEAR RTO OFFICE, DC COMPOUND,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.
4 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE
FOREST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTC
BANGALORE DIVISION,
BANGALORE, VANA VIKASA,
2ND FLOOR,
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE
GENERAL A/W SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR
R1; SRI. MURUGESH V CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R2
TO R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE RE E TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED
26.12.2025 ISSUED FOR BENGALURU DIVISION NO.
KFDC/DM/BNG/SALES/EXT & TRA/CALL-2/2025-
26/986 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND WRIT OF
MANDAMUS THEREBY DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER
HIS REPRESENTATION DATED 22.12.2025 AS PER
ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO OPEN THE BID OF THE PETITIONER.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
WP No. 40 of 2026
C/W WP No. 38498 of 2025
WP No. 39669 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
ORAL ORDER
The Karnataka Forest Development Corporation
Limited [the Corporation] has invited tenders for
extraction of Eucalyptus, Casuarina and Subabool
trees in its multiple plantation units within
Shivamogga, Chikkamagaluru and Bengaluru
Divisions, converting the extracted timbers into
pulpwood [with bark or debarked], loading for
transportation to the specified factories and
unloading there. The Corporation has issued the first
Notification for these divisions on 07/08.11.2025.
The Corporation did not stipulate any eligibility
criteria for those who could participate in the tender
process, but it has issued the Corrigenda dated
20/21/24.11.2025 stipulating that the tenderers
should have had the experience of executing such
work, at the minimum, in the three preceding years.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
2. The Corporation has cancelled the tender
Notification dated 07/08.11.2025 [these Notifications
are called 'the earlier Notification']. In the pre-bid
meeting on 30.12.2025, the Corporation has further
stipulated that the Work Experience Certificate as
mentioned in the impugned earlier Notifications for
all three divisions must be issued by the Forest
Department or the Corporation or the Mysore Paper
Mills Limited [MPM]. The Corporation has issued the
impugned tender Notifications dated 26.12.2025. The
details of these impugned Notifications [these
Notifications are referred to as 'the impugned
Notifications'] and the eligibility condition stipulated
by the Corporation in these Notifications are thus:
The details of
Division the impugned The Condition
Notifications
A bidder must furnish
No.KA.A.NI.NI/ VI/ a Work-Experience
Shivamogga Certificate for at least
ViVya/Shi.Mo./S-
5/call-2/2025- one year in the last
26/1071 five years.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
A bidder must furnish
Bengaluru No.KFDC/DM/BNG/S a Work-Experience
ALES/EXT & Certificate of one year.
TRA/CALL-2/2025-
A bidder must furnish
a Work-Experience
Chikkamagaluru No.KFDC/DM/CKM/A- Certificate of at least
6/2025-26/492/Call-2 one year in the last
five years
3. The Corporation's decision to cancel the
earlier Notifications and issue the impugned
Notification with these stipulations and the
clarification has led to these petitions by those who
have submitted their bids in response to the earlier
Notification. The details of these petitions are:
Writ
Petition
Prayer/s Division
No.
• To quash the Tender
Notification dated 26.12.2025.
• To direct the respondents to
40/2026 Shivamogga
finalize, confirm and give effect to
the tender process initiated under
E-tender Notification dated
07.11.2025 by issuing the work
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
order in favour of the petitioners
as the declared L1 bidder.
• To quash the impugned eligibility
criteria requiring experience of
three years with MPM or the
Corporation Limited or the
Department as stipulated in the
Addendum/Corrigendum1.
• To direct the respondents to
permit and allow the petitioners
to participate in the impugned Shivamogga
tenders based on their overall
Chikkamagaluru
experience in forestry operations,
38498/2025
financial capacity, and technical Bengaluru
competence, without insisting on
prior experience with the
specified Karnataka entities.
• To direct the respondents to
extend the time for submission of
bids and postpone the opening of
the technical and financial bids to
enable the petitioners to
participate in the tender.
1 The reference is to the corrigenda issued to the earlier
Notifications which have been cancelled and in the
apprehension that this condition would be insisted upon for
the finalization of the bids under the impugned Notification
dated 26.12.2025.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
• To quash the Notification dated
26.12.2025 issued by the second
respondent.
• To direct the respondents to
finalize, confirm or give effect to
39669/2025 Bengaluru
the tender process initiated under
the E-Tender Notification dated
08.11.2025 by issuing the work
order in favour of the petitioner
as the declared L1 bidder.
• To quash the impugned eligibility
criterion requiring "Experience of
one year with MPM or the
Corporation Limited or the
Department.
• To direct the respondents to
permit and allow the petitioners Shivamogga
41/2026 to participate in the impugned Chikkamagalur
tenders on the basis of their
overall experience in forestry Bengaluru
operations, financial capacity,
and technical competence,
without insisting on prior
experience with the specified
Karnataka entities.
• To direct the respondents to
extend the time for submission of
bids and postpone the opening of
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
technical financial bids to enable
the petitioners to participate in
the tender.
• To quash the Notification dated
26.12.2025 issued by the
respondent No.4.
42/2026 • To direct the respondents to Chikkamagaluru
finalize, confirm and give effect to
the tender process initiated under
the E tender notification dated
07.11.2025 by issuing the work
order in favour of the petitioners
as the declared L1 tenderers.
• To quash the Notification dated
748/2026 Bengaluru
26.12.2025 issued by the
Bengaluru division
The Corporation's justification to cancel the
earlier Notifications and issue the impugned
Notifications.
4. The Corporation contends that it is
constrained to cancel the Notifications dated
07.11.2025 and 08.11.2025 because the bids offered
are not beneficial to it and that the tenderers have
offered unscientific prices. The Corporation's decision
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
is dated 26.12.2025, and this decision is contained in
the Communication of the even date addressed by the
Executive Director, Shivamogga to the Divisional
Managers in the Bengaluru, Chikkamagaluru,
Dharwad and Shivamogga Divisions. The
Corporation's justification on why the bids are
unscientific and not beneficial is founded in the
following assertions. The petitioners seriously contest
these assertions, but to capture the context of the
dispute at the beginning, the Corporation's reasons
are mentioned first.
4.1 Collusive Bids: The members of a certain
family, acting in cohorts, have offered bids: if one
family member has offered the lowest bid for certain
plantation units, another family member has offered
the lowest bid for the other plantation units. The
contract therefore will have to be offered to these
family members at prices that are beneficial to them.
The Corporation has offered instances of this
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
collusion in the bids received for certain plantations
in Chikkamagaluru and Shivamogga Divisions.
4.2 Rates irrespective of the Distance: The
tenderers have to quote rates for transportation from
the concerned plantation units in the divisions to
purchaser factory units either in Harihara or Dandeli.
The distance between these plantation units and the
factories varies. The tenderers have quoted higher
rates for transportation to factories which are closer
and lower rates to the factories that are farther. The
illustration is in pointing out that they have quoted a
higher rate between Rs.100/- and Rs.300/-
notwithstanding the distance. This illustration is
similar in the bids received for tenders for
Shivamogga and Chikkamagaluru Divisions.
4.3 The lower bids when transportation is
to be executed. The Corporation, while furnishing
similar data to justify that there is collusion amongst
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
certain family members in offering bids and rates
that are unscientific [despite the distance between the
plantation units and the factories] for the Bangalore
Division, has also pointed out that the petitioner in
WP No. 39669/2025, who contends that he has
offered the lowest price, has quoted higher prices for
extraction, debarking and loading and low prices for
to same work but with transportation to the factory
units.
4.4 The Corporation has furnished data to
assert that if this petitioner has quoted rates between
Rs.797 and Rs.1287 for extraction, debarking and
loading at the plantation units, he has quoted rates
between Rs.349/- and Rs.997/- for extraction,
debarking, loading and transportation from the
plantations unit to the factories. The Corporation
contends that the petitioner will have to absorb the
cost of transportation and therefore he could not
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
have quoted a rate lower than the rate quoted for the
work without transportation.
The Arguments for the petitioners in WP No.
40/2026 and 42/2006:
5. These petitioners have offered their bids
for certain plantation units in Chikkamagaluru and
Shivamogga Divisions, and their grievance is with the
Corporation's decision to cancel the earlier
Notification/s and to issue the impugned
Notification/s. The petitioners seek directions to the
Corporation to complete the tender process in terms
of the Notifications dated 07.11.2025.
5.1 Sri Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court
must intervene because the decision to cancel the
earlier tender Notification does not comply with
Section 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Act, 1999 [for short, 'the KTPP Act'] and
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the decision to cancel the tender is purportedly
because the bids offered are unscientific and
cartelization and neither is justifiable. The learned
Senior Counsel's elaboration is:
[a] The Tender Accepting Authority can
indeed can reject all the tenders i.e.,
before the acceptance of a bid, on the
ground such as [i] a change in the
scope of procurement, [ii] failure of
expected financial resource, [iii]
accidents, [iv] calamities or [v] any
other ground which renders the
procurement either unnecessary or
impossible and file a report with the
Procurement Entity, and the
Procurement Entity must thereafter
communicate the fact of the rejection of
the tender to all the tenderers and
ensure the same is published in the
Karnataka Public Procurement portal.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
[b] The decision to cancel the tender dated
07.11.2025 is by the Corporation's
Managing Director, and it is
communicated by the Executive
Director of Shivamogga Division to the
Divisional Managers as seen in the
communication dated 26.12.2025.
However, this is without due regard to
Section 14 of the KTPP Act which
stipulates that the decision must be by
the Tender Accepting Authority and
that there is nothing to justify that the
decision is for anyone of the reasons
mentioned in such provision.
[c] The decision is not communicated to
any of the tenderers because the
impugned Notification is issued on the
same day. This Court in WP No.
5449/2023, which is decided on
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
16.5.2023, has held that if there is
non-compliance with Section 14 of the
KTPP Act the State's decision to cancel
the tender and issue fresh tender will
be arbitrary. The reliance is on
paragraph 14 which reads as under:
"In the case at hand, when the
petitioner was expecting a work
order, what comes about is a
fresh tender Notification. A
caveat, this Court is not
pronouncing upon the fact that
once a tenderer is declared to be
the highest beta or the lowest
bidder, the State does not have
power to recall the tender;
cancel the tender or issue of
fresh tender, it does. It should
be informed by reasons, and
those reasons should be
informed to all the tenderers in
terms of Section 14 of the Act,
failing which, such actions of
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the state would become
arbitrary."
[d] The Corporation cannot contend that
the tenderers have quoted unscientific
prices only because lower prices are
quoted for transportation although a
factory unit could be farther than
another factory Unit because it also
depends on whether the vehicle will
have to be plied only for transportation
between the plantation units and the
factory units or whether the vehicle, on
the return journey, could be used by
others for transportation. The price
therefore is quoted on assessing all
circumstances, and this would also be
the same where certain prices have
been offered by members from a family.
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
The Arguments for the petitioners in WP No.
39669/2025:
6. Sri R. Subramanya, the learned counsel
for the petitioner in W.P.No.39669/2025 who has
offered his bids for the tendered work in Bengaluru
Division and seeks same relief as by the petitioners in
WP No. 40/2026 and 42/2026, adopted these
arguments seeking to elaborate on why the
Corporation's decision to cancel the earlier
Notification [for Bangalore Division] is arbitrary and
unreasonable. The learned counsel argues that the
Corporation has falsely stated in its Statement of
Objections that this petitioner [and others] have
quoted lesser rates because of certain
prearrangements that undermines the Corporation's
interest, and that the petitioner and the others have
quoted a lesser price for the work that involves
extraction of timber, conversion to pulpwood and
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
transportation with loading but a higher price when
there is no transportation.
6.1 Sri R. Subramanya, relying upon the
Corporation's analysis of the bids received in
response to the Notification dated 08.11.20252,
submits that the petitioner has quoted almost twice
the rate for extraction, debarking, loading and
transportation and therefore the price quoted by the
petitioner only for extraction, debarking and loading
[without transportation] is half the amount. He
invites the Court's attention to the quotes for the
Rayasandra Plantation Unit, Koramangala Plantation
Unit and Goramadugu Plantation Unit. The petitioner
for these plantation units has quoted the following
rates for work with transportation and without the
transportation.
2 This analysis is furnished as Annexure - E to the
Memorandum of petition, and the Corporation contests the
authenticity of this document.
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
Rs.1697 and
Rs.2177 for
Rayasandra Rs.797 without
transportation to
Plantation Unit transportation
Kumarapattanam and
Dandeli respectively.
Rs.1,697 and
Rs.1,999 for
Koramangala Rs.757 without
transportation to
Plantation Unit transportation
Kumarapattanam and
Dandeli respectively.
Rs.1.699 and Rs.
1999 for
Guramadugu Rs.6.99 without
transportation to
Plantation Unit transportation
Kumarapattanam and
Dandeli respectively.
The learned Counsel also points out that if the
petitioner has quoted rates as afore, the others have
quoted much higher rates, and the learned counsel
invites this Court's attention to the prices offered by
the others for these units. Indeed, the price offered by
the others is higher, and rates are high between
40.50%.
6.2 Sri R. Subramanya, while refuting the
assertion that the petitioner has offered higher rates
for extraction, debarking and loading, and lower rates
for the same work with transportation, submits that
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the petitioner has offered certain lower rates because
of his understanding that he could purchase the
timber at those rates and at his cost he could debark,
load and transport it to any of the units. The learned
counsel submits that this offer cannot be juxtaposed
with the prices quoted to assert that the petitioner
has offered unscientific rates.
The petition in W.P.No.748/2026 and the
arguments on behalf of these petitioners.
7. This petitioner in his WP No. 36337/2025
has called in question the Corrigendum dated
21.11.2025 [after the first Notification dated
08.11.2025] inviting bids for extraction, debarking,
loading with and without transportation from the
Plantation Units in Bangalore Division. The
Corporation has issued this Corrigendum stipulating
the eligibility criterion of executing similar work in
the three preceding years, at the minimum. This
Court has disposed of this petition in W.P.No.
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
36337/2025 on 10.12.2025 in the light of the
submission made by the Divisional Manager,
Bangalore Division [who was present in person] that
the petitioner will be permitted to participate in the
tender process without insisting upon the minimum
qualification criteria. This Court has permitted the
petitioner to submit his bid in physical format by
12.12.2025 directing the Corporation to process the
same.
7.1 Sri Prasanna D P, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner, submits that the Corporation, despite
a concession before this Court to consider the
petitioner's bids along with the bid submitted by the
others, has not even opened the petitioners' bids
offered and has arbitrarily cancelled the earlier
Notification dated 08.11.2025 and issued the
impugned Notification dated 26.12.2025. The
Learned counsel, who like Sri R Subramanya adopts
the arguments of Sri Ashok Haranahalli, submits
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
that the arbitrariness is amplified because the
decisions to cancel the earlier tender Notification and
the issue the impugned Notification is within one
hour, and the learned counsel invites this Court's
attention to the details as uploaded by the
Corporation on the Karnataka Proclamation Portal to
substantiate his case.
The arguments on behalf of the petitioners in
W.P. No.38498/2025 and in W.P.No.41/2026.
8. The same petitioners have filed these
petitions. In WP 38498/2025: they seek quashing of
the Corporation's insistence on a Work Experience
Certificate issued by MPM/the Corporation/the
Forest Department under the Corrigenda dated
20/21/24.11.2025 issued to the earlier Notification
dated 08.11.2025. These petitioners have also filed
the next petition in WP No. 41/2026 calling in
question the impugned Notification dated
26.12.2025. The petitioners contend that the
Corporation cannot insist that a bidder should have
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
work experience of a minimum of 3 years or even 1
year as certified by MPM/by it/ by the Forest
Department.
8.1 Sri. Vigneshwara Shastri, the learned
Senior Counsel for these petitioners, submits that
this Court must intervene with the impugned
Notification dated 2612 2025 and direct the
Corporation to extend another opportunity to
participate in the tender [with the extension of time]
and accept a bid received under the earlier
Notification dated 08.11.2025 without insisting upon
the minimum experience of either three years or even
a year. The learned Senior Counsel submits that he
does not propose to contend that the Corporation [a
State Government's undertaking] cannot have a free
hand in settling the terms of a tender or that this
Court must opine that other terms could be fairer or
wiser or more logical, but he will argue for
interference and directions as afore because the
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
Corporation, in insisting upon experience, is violating
the doctrine of 'level playing field', a proposition
reiterated by the Apex Court in Vinishma
Technologies Private Limited v. State of
Chhattisgarh and another3.
8.2 Sri. Vigneshwara Shastri argues that the
emphasis on this doctrine is to ensure that there is
an equal opportunity for everyone to participate for
every citizen and that the tender terms are not
designed to create arbitrary barriers to favour a few;
and the learned Senior Counsel argues that this
insistence on past experience for extraction of timber,
debarking, conversion into pulpwood, loading and
transporting the pulpwood ensures that this work is
entrusted to those who are associated in the past
with either the Corporation or the Department/MPM
and this creates artificial barriers for those who have
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the requisite experience in executing the contracts for
these works but for others.
The Arguments on behalf the Corporation/State
Government:
9. Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, the learned
Advocate General for both the Corporation and the
State Government, contests the assertion that the
decision to cancel the earlier Notifications is not by
the competent authority and that the stipulations
under Section 14 of the KTPP Act are violated. The
learned Advocate General, relying upon the affidavit
filed by an Executive Director with the Corporation,
underscores the following to buttress his arguments
on [a] the decision being by the competent authority
under the KTPP Act, [b] the compliance with the
requirements of Section 14 of the KTPP Act, and [c]
the reasons for the decision to cancel the earlier
Notifications and issue the impugned Notification.
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
On the decision being by the competent authority
under the KTPP Act.
9.1 The Corporation has one Executive
Director for Pulpwood Wing for all the Divisions,
including the Bangalore, Shivamogga and
Chikkamagaluru Divisions. The office of the
Executive Director, Pulpwood Wing is at Shivamogga,
and this is for administrative exigencies. The
Divisional Managers of each Division are the Tender
Inviting Authority for the respective Divisions, but the
Executive Director of the respective Wings is the
Tender Accepting Authority. The Procurement
Authority will be the Managing Director of the
Corporation.
9.2 The concerned Divisional Managers have
published both the earlier Notifications, and the
impugned Notifications, and the Executive Director,
Pulpwood Wing has decided on canceling the earlier
tenders after a meeting with the Divisional Managers
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
in consultation with the Managing Director. This
decision process is in accordance with the
requirements under Section 14 of the KTPP Act.
On the compliance with Section 14 of the KTPP
Act.
9.3 The Tender Accepting Authority can
cancel a tender before the acceptance of a bid,
amongst other reasons, if there is a failure of
expected financial resources or any other ground
which renders the procurement either unnecessary or
impossible. This power is undeniable in view of
section 14[1] of the KTPP Act and in this case the
Executive Director, Pulpwood Wing [as the Tender
Accepting Authority] has reasoned, after a meeting
with the Divisional Managers, why the bids offered
collusive and unscientific, and it is only in the light of
such reasoning, the Executive Director has cancelled
the earlier Notifications and decided on issuing fresh
Notifications [the impugned Notifications].
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
9.4 The Procurement Authority is placed on
an onus to ensure that the decision to cancel the
tender is informed to all the tenders and publication
of such decision on the Karnataka Public
Procurement Portal. The Executive Director,
Pulpwood Wing, on 20.12.2025, has decided to
cancel the earlier Notifications and issue fresh
Notifications, after the formal approval of the
Managing Director and this decision is
communicated to the Divisional Managers vide the
Communication dated 26.12.2025.
9.5 This Communication is also uploaded on
the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal
communicating the reason for the decision to cancel
the earlier Notifications. Simultaneously, as part of
an automated process on the portal, the EMD is
transferred back to each of the tenderers . This
process complies with the twin requirements under
Section 14 [2] of the KTPP Act.
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
On the reasons for the cancellation of the earlier
Notifications and to issue the impugned
Notification.
9.6 The Executive Director's decision to cancel
the earlier Notifications is because of the cartelization
that is obvious in the bids offered and this
cartelization defeats the Corporation's intendment in
calling for bids to maximize the returns in a
competent of process with the participation of those
who have had the experience in the field. The
cartelization is seen in the collusive bids and rates
offered irrespective of the distance between the
Plantation Units and the Factory Units. The
elaboration is in line with the objections that have
been captured by this Court in paragraph 4 of this
order.
9.7 Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty canvasses that
this Court must consider that the settled position is
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
that the Government's Procurement Agencies must
be given sufficient leeway to decide on the terms of a
tender and in deciding to cancel/recall a tender as
these decisions are taken in the realm of contracts
with the hindsight advantage of experience. The
learned Advocate General also canvasses that the
Corporation has had difficulties in the past with the
Contractors delay in completing the tender work,
resulting in loss to the Corporation's exchequer
because the purchasing units/factories, with whom
contracts are executed to supply pulpwood, seek
enforcement of the rights under those contracts in
the event there is a delay, and that the Corporation's
decision to insist on Experience Certificate must be
considered in this context.
9.8 Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty also submits that
if this Court finds that the impugned Notifications are
not consistent in insisting upon work experience, this
Court could also issue directions for a new tender
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
canceling the impugned Notifications. The Learned
Advocate General emphasizes that if this Court
directs the Corporation to examine the bids received
under the earlier Notifications, the Corporation will
be exposed to severe financial loss.
10. The questions for consideration in the
circumstances and the submissions presented.
[i] Whether this Court must interfere
with the Corporation's decision to
cancel the earlier Notifications and
issue the impugned Notifications
because the decision in this regard
is in violation of the requirements
under Section 14 of the KTPP Act.
[ii] Whether the Corporation has
successfully shown that the
tenderers have offered collusive
bidding and that they have quoted
unscientific rates in response to the
earlier Notifications.
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
[iii] Whether the Corporation is arbitrary
and unreasonable in insisting upon
experience as an eligibility criterion.
Reg. Question No. 1 & 2
11. This Court must first refer to the Apex
Court's decision in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour
v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority4.
The Apex Court considering the scope of interference
with the decision to cancel a tender under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, and while examining
whether the action of cancelling the tender is
arbitrary or unfair and in consequence of violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution, has emphasized the
following.
72. One another way, to assess whether an action
complained of could be termed as arbitrary is by way
of scrutinising the reasons that have been assigned to
such an action. It involves overseeing whether the
reasons which have been cited if at all genuinely
formed part of the decision-making process or whether
they are merely a ruse. All decisions that are taken
4 [2024) 15 SCC 461
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
must earnestly be in lieu of the reasons and
considerations that have been assigned to it. The
Court must be mindful of the fact that it is not
supposed to delve into every minute details of the
reasoning assigned, it need not to go into a detailed
exercise of assessing the pros and cons of the reasons
itself, but should only see whether the reasons were
earnest, genuine and had a rationale with the ultimate
decision. What is under scrutiny in judicial review of
an action is the decision-making process and whether
there is any element of arbitrariness or mala fide.
73. Thus, the question to be answered in such situations is
whether the decision was based on valid
considerations. This is undertaken to ensure that the
reasons assigned were the true motivations behind the
action and it involves checking for the presence of any
ulterior motives or irrelevant considerations that might
have influenced the decision. The approach of the
court must be to respect the expertise and discretion of
administrative authorities while still protecting against
arbitrary and capricious actions.
11.1 The Section 14[1]5 of the KTPP Act
confers power in the Tender Accepting Authority to
5 Section 14 [1]: The Tender Accepting Authority may at any
time before passing an order of acceptance
under Section 13 reject all the tenders on the
ground of changes in the scope of
procurement, failure of anticipated financial
resource, accidents, calamities or any other
ground as may be prescribed which would
render the procurement unnecessary or
impossible and report the same to
Procurement Entity.
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
cancel the tender, before a bid is accepted, for
reasons such as failure of expected financial
resources, or any other ground which renders, in the
Tender Accepting Authority's opinion, the
procurement unnecessary or impossible. Inarguably,
a Tender Accepting Authority can cancel a tender if it
opines that the expected financial resources cannot
be mobilised. It is brought out to this Court's
satisfaction that the Executive Director, Pulpwood is
the Tender Accepting Authority within the
Corporation; that this Executive Director has
reasoned why the earlier Notifications must be
cancelled. This Court also opines that there is no
irregularity merely because the Executive Director
has cancelled the earlier Notification with the formal
approval of the Managing Director, the Procurement
Authority.
11.2 This Court must now consider, as
emphasised by the Apex Court in the decision
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour [supra], whether the
reasons assigned to cancel the earlier Notifications
are earnest and genuine and whether they have a
rationale with the ultimate decision to cancel the
earlier Notification. On behalf of the Corporation, two
different circumstances are placed on record to
justify the decision to recall the earlier Notifications.
The Corporation for the recall/ cancellation of the
earlier Notifications issued by the Divisional
Managers of Shivamogga and Chikkamagaluru Sub-
division contends that it is because of the collusive
bids by the members of certain families and the rates
quoted irrespective of the distance between the
Plantation Units and Factories; and for the recall of
the earlier tender Notification issued by the Divisional
Manger, Bengaluru Division, the Corporation
contends that, though the petitioner in
W.P.No.39669/2025 has offered the lowest bid, his
bids are unscientific because he has quoted a higher
price for the work tendered but without
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
transportation and a lower rate for the tendered work
with transportation. It is also submitted that this
petitioner, as also the other tenderers, has quoted
rates that are not commensurate with the distance.
11.3 The Corporation relies upon a few
illustrations to underscore its reasons. It has placed
on record that in the Chikkamagaluru Division, Mr.
Noorulla Shariff and Mr. Hafizullah Shariff [two
brothers] have offered the lowest bids for specific
Plantations Units. Mr. Noorulla Shariff has offered the
lowest bid for Plantation No.1 and 2 and his brother
[Mr. Hafizullah Shariff] has offered the lowest bid for
Plantation Nos.19 and 30. These two brothers are the
only tenderers for these Plantations. Similarly, Mr.
Mohammed Ahmed and Mr. Mohammed Gouse, as
the only tenderers, have offered the lowest bid for
Plantation Nos.4 and 23; and Mr. T. Perumal and Mr.
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
A. P. Kini6 are the only tenderers for Plantation No.5
and 12 and they have offered the lowest bids.
11.4 The similar illustration is given setting out
the distance between the two manufacturing units
[M/s. West Course Paper Mills and M/s. Harihara
Paper Mills] to emphasize that the lowest bid is by
such as Mr. Noorulla Shariff, Mr. Hafizullah Shariff,
Mr. Mohammed Ghouse and Mr. Mohammed Ahamed
who have quoted a lower price to transport the
harvested pulpwood to the farthest of these factories
although it should be otherwise.
11.5 The Apex Court has stipulated that the
judicial review should be limited to examining
whether the reasons assigned for cancellation are the
true motivation behind such a decision and that it is
not because of any ulterior motive of irrelevant
consideration. The petitioners assert that the quote of
6 These mentioned persons are parties to these petitions.
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
a lesser price for transportation to the farthest
factories is only because of business reasons such as
their ability to get assignments to transport on the
return journey, but this Court is persuaded to opine
that the reasons, as illustrated, are relevant and
some motive must be inferred only because the
petitioners can offer some explanation. The
petitioners do not specifically allege any specific
ulterior motive in the Corporation's decision to cancel
the earlier Notifications.
11.6 The petitioner in W.P.No.39669/2025
asserts that he is consistent in quoting rates for
extraction, debarking with and without
transportation relying upon the details furnished in
Annexure-E. The Corporation contends that
Annexure - E is not issued by its office. Crucially, the
petitioner does not dispute that he has mentioned
additional rates and that these rates are lower than
rates that he has quoted for the tendered work with
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
transportation and without transportation. The
petitioner asserts that he has offered these rates to
purchase timber, but it is undisputed that the earlier
Notifications [for Bangalore or the other Divisions] do
not require the tenderers to offer rates for purchasing
the extracted pulpwood at the Plantation units. The
petitioner has introduced an extraneous element
resulting in the opinion that the price offered even by
this petitioner is unscientific.
11.7 This petitioner asserts that the
Corporation cannot deny that his offer will be the
lowest for the respective Plantation Units if the rates
offered by him to purchase the extracted pulpwood at
the Plantation Units are excluded, and that if the
earlier Notifications are recalled when he has quoted
the lowest rates, he would be put to hardship. This
Court has considered these aspects as well to
consider should this petitioner be given any
advantage despite quoting rates for purchase which
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
are outside the earlier Notifications, which have led to
an assessment of an unscientific offer.
11.8 It is trite that the exercise of judicial
review is confined to examine whether the decision to
cancel a tender is based on valid consideration and
not driven by ulterior motive. If the other petitioners
have offered bids which have been assessed to be
collusive, the petitioner in W.P.No.39669/2025 has
offered bids beyond the tender terms. This Court is of
the considered view that the Corporation's decision to
cancel the earlier Notifications is based on the
assessment of there being collusive bids and
unscientific quotation of rates to its financial
detriment, and that these would be valid
considerations. This Court cannot infer either ulterior
motive or invalid consideration, especially when there
is no specific allegation of ulterior motive.
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
11.9 The next aspect that should be
considered to answer these questions [Nos.1 and 2] is
about the due compliance with the requirement of
Section 14(2)7 of the KTPP Act. The Corporation's
specific case is in these folds. The decision is taken
by the Tender Accepting Authority [the Executive
Director, Pulpwood Division, Shivamogga] with the
formal approval of the Managing Director who
represents the Corporation [the Procurement
Authority]. The decision is taken on 20.12.2025 after
a meeting with the Divisional Managers, and this
decision, once formal approval is received by the
Managing Director, is communicated to the Divisional
Managers vide the Communication dated 26.12.2025.
11.10 These aspects are borne out by the
records as is the fact that the Communication dated
26.12.2025 is uploaded in the Public Procurement
7 The Procurement Entity shall thereafter communicate the
fact of the rejection under this section to all the Tenderers
and also cause the same to be published in the Karnataka
Public Procurement Portal.
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
Portal. Further, the petitioners do not dispute that
the deposits furnished along with their submissions
have also been re-transferred as part of the
automated process on the portal. These
circumstances establish that there is due compliance
with the requirement of communication of the
cancellation/rejection of all the bids and the
publication thereof on the portal. As such, this Court
cannot infer any violation of the statutory provisions
to hold that the decision is arbitrary. The question
Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
Reg. Question No.3:
12.1 The Corporation has issued the impugned
Notifications for similar work. The petitioners'
grievance with this insistence is pivoted on two
assertions. The first assertion is that the Corporation
has stipulated that such certificates must be issued
either by it or the department or MPM. The context
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
for this is the Corrigenda dated 20/21/24.11.2025 to
the earlier Notifications. This Corrigendum is indeed
issued stipulating that the Work Experience
Certificate for a minimum of three years must be
from one of the three aforementioned, but it is
undisputed that this is not part of the impugned
Notifications. As such, this Court must observe that
there cannot be any order interfering with the
impugned Notifications on this ground.
12.2 The next assertion is the insistence
on one-year work experience violates the principle of
'a fair playing field' and that it is inconsistent. The
Corporation's justification is based on its experience
with the contractors allegedly delaying the execution
of the work exposing the Corporation to
consequences because of the claims of the Factory
Units who are assured of a timely supply of
pulpwood. This Court opines that the Corporation
must have leeway in finalizing the terms without
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
offending the principles of fairness and equal
opportunity, and this Court will not substitute the
terms only because the terms could be fairer, wiser,
or more logical. The Corporation must have the
advantage of hindsight experience in deciding
whether the participation should be open to all or
only to those who have some experience as certified
by the concerned.
12.3 The Corporation's term across the
impugned Notification on Work Experience Certificate
as first mentioned above is:
Division The Condition
A bidder must furnish a Work-Experience
Shivamogga Certificate for at least one year in the last five
years.
A bidder must furnish a Work-Experience
Bengaluru
Certificate of one year.
A bidder must furnish a Work-Experience
Chikkamagaluru Certificate of at least one year in the last five
years
- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
12.4 It is obvious from reading these
terms that the Corporation has not spelt out
consistently that the work experience must be over
five years or over a much longer period [or even a
shorter period]. This infuses an element of
arbitrariness. The submissions on behalf of the
Corporation that it will issue fresh Notifications is
considered, in view of this Court's opinion that the
Corporation cannot proceed further with the
impugned Notifications but must issue fresh tender
Notifications calling for fresh tenders The ground as
against the inconsistent terms on the Work
Experience are specific to W.P.No.38498/2025 and
W.P.No.41/2026, but because of the reasons
assigned, all the petitions must be allowed on this
short ground. The question No.3 is answered
accordingly. In the light of the afore, the following:
- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11344
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
ORDER
[a] The writ petitions are allowed-in-part
quashing the following impugned Notifications
dated 26.12.2025:
Division Tender Notification Number
Shivamogga No.KA.A.NI.NI/ VI/ViVya/Shi.Mo./S-
5/call-2/2025-26/1071
Bengaluru No.KFDC/DM/BNG/SALES/EXT&TR
A/CALL-2/2025-26/986
Chikkamagaluru No.KFDC/DM/CKM/A-6/2025-
26/492/Call-2
[b] The Corporation is directed to re-issue the
tender Notifications calling for fresh bids for
Shivamogga, Bengaluru and Chikkamagaluru
divisions.
All the pending applications stand disposed of .
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
SA*
