[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Bhosale Transport vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:893
WP No. 200395 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 200395 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S BHOSALE TRANSPORT,
R/BY PRT: RAVINDRA
S/O AMBARAYA SINGH,
SHARANA NAGAR, ALAND TALUKA,
KALABURAGI DIST.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
RENUKA AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
PRESIDENT OF TECHNICAL BID EVALUATION
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:893
WP No. 200395 of 2026
HC-KAR
COMMITTEE, KALABURAGI,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPT,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1)
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS/
REPRESENTATION DATED 30-12-2025 IN THE TENDER
NOTIFICATION DATED 21-10-2025, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2, IN SO FAR THE KALABURAGI TALUKA IS
CONCERNED, THE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:893
WP No. 200395 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed
to accept notice for respondents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
3. This petition is filed seeking a writ of
mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider the
objection/representation dated 30.12.2025 in the Tender
Notification dated 21.10.2025 issued by respondent No.2
insofar as Kalaburagi taluk is concerned.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that petitioner is doing the business of
transportation, more specifically, in the area of
transportation of food grains and supplies in the name of
M/s. Bhosale Transport. Respondent No.2 Government
through Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department issued Tender Notification on 21.10.2025
invited bids for retail transportation of food grains through
NC: 2026:KHC-K:893
HC-KAR
e-tender notification for December-2026 to 22 taluks for
supply of food grains. The petitioner having found himself
eligible applied for the said tender for transportation with
respect to Kalaburagi Taluk and District. The petitioner
had raised certain objections to the tender evaluation
committee with regard to one of the tender applicants
namely, M/s.Lingraj S. Bukke having submitted
undervalued and under stamped General Power of
Attorney/Special Power of Attorney on Rs.100/- only
instead of paying Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively,
and requested the technical evaluation committee to
consider the objections and take necessary action before
clearing the technical evaluation of the tender applications.
5. It is contended that said M/s.Lingraj S. Bukke
also participated in the earlier tender for similar work in
which despite his ineligibility of similar technical bid was
cleared in technical bid and later some of the applicants
approached appellate authority due to which M/s.Lingraj
S. Bukke was disqualified. However, later in order to
NC: 2026:KHC-K:893
HC-KAR
accommodate the said person, issued a fresh tender
without closing earlier tender process. Therefore, it is the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent No.3 will ignore the objections filed by other
tender applicants against said M/s.Lingaraj S.Bukke.
6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that non-
consideration of his representation dated 30.12.2025 will
cause hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner and
hence, having no other alternative remedy, he is before
this Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that if his
objections are considered before clearing the technical bid,
he would be satisfied.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate
representing the respondent-State contends that the
objections, if any, filed by the petitioner would be taken
into consideration if the technical bid of the tender is
already not opened as on today at 03:08 PM.
8. Accordingly, I pass the following:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:893
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing
respondent No.3 to consider the objections/
representation dated 30.12.2025 in the
Tender Notification dated 21.10.2025, if
already not considered as on today at
03:08 PM restricted to Kalaburagi taluk.
iii. The said representation will be considered
and dealt with in accordance with law.
iv. Since learned Additional Government
Advocate is present before the Court
physically, the order passed today by this
Court shall be telephonically communicated
to the concerned authorities forthwith.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
CT:MH
