[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Forceone Sd Private Limited vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
WP No. 26719 of 2025
HC-KAR
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 26719 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN
FORCEONE SD PRIVATE LIMITED
606, KRISH GARDENS, 1-8-373, HUDA
OFFICE LANE CHIRAN FORT LANE,
BEGUMPETNA-SECUNDERABAD-T,
TELANGANA 560016
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAHIL SOOD., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MOHSIN KHAN PATHAN., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
GOVT OF KARNATAKA,
KAVERI BHAWAN, KG ROAD,
Digitally signed
KG ROAD, BENGALURU 560009
by SHWETHA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH 2. KERC,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
NO 16, C-1, MILLERS TANK BUND RD,
BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560052
THROUGH THE REGISTRAR
3. KSLDC
KARNATAKA STATE LOAD DISPATCH CENTRE,
GOVT OF KARNATAKA,
27/1, RACE COURSE RD, MADHAVA NAGAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560009
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
WP No. 26719 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. GOVT OF KARNATAKA
ENERGY DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO 236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR STREET,
BANGALORE 560001
THROUGH THE ENERGY CHIEF SECRETARY
5. MINISTRY OF POWER
GOVT OF INDIA,
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110001
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. D.J. RAKSHITHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. K.P. YASHODHA., AGA FOR R4;
SRI. VENKATANARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
V/O DATED 03.09.2025, NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS
STANDS DEFFERED SUBJECT TO FURTHER ORDERS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER
FOR CALLING FOR RECORDS ABOUT THE INVITATION TO TENDER
DATED 11.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 ANNX-B
BEARING NO. KPTCL/CGM (TECH) /BESS/25-26/002 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
1. Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i. Writ or certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction
or order for calling for records about the invitation to
tender dated 11.06.2025 issued by the Respondent
No.1 (Annexure-B), bearing No. KPTCL/CGM (TECH)
/BESS/25-26/002.
ii. Writ, Order or any other direction or order declaring
the bid submitted by the successful bidder (L1) as
non-complaint and invalid bid.
iii. Writ of certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction
or order declaring the action dated 19.08.2025,
wherein the petitioners bid was decided as non-
responsive, as illegal, and without any basis
(Annexure-D)
iv. Writ of certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction
or order to qualify our Bid and direct the KPTCL
rehold the reverse auction process in an open and
transparent manner with sufficient notice.
v. Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the present facts of the case.
vi. Grant the costs of these proceedings.
2. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Limited [KPTCL]- Respondent No.1 invited proposal
to set up a grid-connected standalone Battery Energy
Storage System, for which a Battery Energy Storage
System Agreement would be entered into by the
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
State, the bidders being selected through a reverse
auction to provide such energy storage facilities to
HESCOMs. The Petitioner participated in respect of
the tender notification. It being a single-stage
bidding process with two envelopes containing
technical and financial bids. The tender was issued
on 11.06.2025, a pre-bid meeting was held on
18.06.2025, the last date for bid submission was
3.07.2025, and the process was to be completed by
8.07.2025. The Petitioner claims to have submitted
the requisite bid documents vide letter dated
8.07.2025 and informed respondent No.1 that an
online application had been successfully submitted
through the ETS portal, which was acknowledged on
9.07.2025. Petitioner claims that no deficiencies
were pointed out in respect of the documents
submitted, and, as such, was shocked to learn on
19.08.2025, upon logging on to the portal, that the
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
Petitioner's bid at tender stage-1 was declared non-
responsive.
3. The reverse bid auction was held on 19.08.2025 at 5
pm. The Petitioner, on 20.08.2025, came to know
that a company by the name PROSTARM Infosystem
had won the current bid, and it is in that background
that the Petitioner has approached this Court on
29.08.2025 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Respondent No.1 is the tender issuing authority viz.,
KPTCL, respondent No.2 is the Karnataka Electricity
Regulatory Commission [KERC], Respondent No.3 is
the Karnataka State Load Dispatch Centre,
Respondent No.4 is the Government of Karnataka,
Energy Department and Respondent No.5 is the
Ministry of Power.
5. Sri.Sahil Sood Learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, would submit that,
5.1. No reasons have been communicated either
through the tender portal or through any email
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
provided by the Petitioner at the time of
rejection, and it is for that reason that the
rejection not having been communicated, the
Petitioner could not take the necessary steps.
The rejection without information to the
Petitioner is bad in law and is required to be set
aside.
5.2. His submission is that there is a clear violation
of natural justice and infirmity in the decision-
making process, therefore rendering the writ
petition maintainable.
5.3. The Petitioner having submitted all the bid
documents in full compliance, this Court ought
to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, and in
that regard, he relies upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex court in Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa1 more particularly para 22
(2007) 14 SCC 517
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended
to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is
to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully"
and not to check whether choice or decision is
"sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked
in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts,
certain special features should be borne in mind. A
contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating
tenders and awarding contracts are essentially
commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural
justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to
award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest,
courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review,
interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in
assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out.
The power of judicial review will not be permitted to
be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of
public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The
tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always
seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by
unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances,
wounded pride and business rivalry, to make
mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to
self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising
power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such
interferences, either interim or final, may hold up
public works for years, or delay relief and succour to
thousands and millions and may increase the project
cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in
tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of
judicial review, should pose to itself the following
questions:
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by
the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone;
or
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so
arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: "the
decision is such that no responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could
have reached";
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no
interference under Article 226. Cases involving
blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse
(allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences,
dealerships and franchises) stand on a different
footing as they may require a higher degree of
fairness in action.
5.4. By relying on Jagdish Mandal's case, his
submission is that a writ court can exercise
jurisdiction where the process adopted or
decision made by the authority is malafide or
intended to favour someone. In the present
matter, the process is malafide since the
Petitioner was not informed and was not given
an opportunity to correct the defects. His
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
further submission is that the process has been
adopted to favour the successful bidder by
contending that the bidder has bid 2.54 lakhs
per Megawatt which is way above the normal
rates, and as such, other bidders like the
Petitioner have been eliminated.
5.5. His submission for the very same reason is that
the decision of the tender issuing authority is
completely arbitrary and irrational. His
submission is also that a large amount has
been bid in the reverse auction, which is more
than the normal amounts. Public interest would
be adversely affected, since these amounts
would have to be paid from the public
exchequer.
5.6. His submission is that the alternative efficacious
remedy in terms of appeal under the Karnataka
Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999
[KTPP Act' for short] would not be an
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
efficacious remedy. In that regard, he relies
upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Sri. Chinnappa Reddy vs. The
State of Karnataka 2, more particularly para
16 and the operative portion thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
16. Submissions are made by the learned senior
Counsel that this Court should not interfere with the
process of tender unless it is found to be arbitrary
and seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of MICHIGAN RUBBER (INDIA)
LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1. In the said
judgment the Apex Court has held as follows:
"...23. From the above decisions, the following
principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in
action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence
and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These
actions are amenable to the judicial review only to
the extent that the State must act validly for a
discernible reason and not whimsically for any
ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds
of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into
consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within
the purview of the executive and the courts hardly
have any role to play in this process except for
striking down such action of the executive as is
WP No.28866 of 2023 DD 23.01.2024
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the
Government acts in conformity with certain healthy
standards and norms such as awarding of contracts
by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the
interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a
tender document and awarding a contract, greater
latitude is required to be conceded to the State
authorities unless the action of the tendering
authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its
statutory powers, interference by courts is not
warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders
have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor
has the capacity and the resources to successfully
execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act
reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding
contract, here again, interference by Court is very
restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental
right to carry on business with the Government.
24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial
review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by
the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone; or whether the process adopted or decision
made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can
say: "the decision is such that no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance with
relevant law could have reached"?
and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected? If the
answers to the above questions are in the negative,
then there should be no interference under Article
226."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the process of tender must
be fair and non-arbitrary which is the heartbeat of
fair play. If it is not, it would become amenable to
judicial review. The Apex Court also holds that certain
preconditions or qualifications for tender have to be
laid down to ensure that the contractor has the
capacity and resources to successfully execute the
work and if it is not, they should be interfered with
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
action of the 2nd respondent is contrary to the Rules
and the Government Order holding the field. Taking
away of working experience of a contractor would put
the project in jeopardy. It is therefore, the entire
process from the stage of issuance of request for
proposal should be redone by the 2nd respondent.
5.7. By relying on Chinnappa Reddy's case, his
submission is that the process of tender must
be fair and non-arbitrary. The Petitioner, having
complied with all the preconditions and
qualifications, having the capacity and
resources to successfully execute the work, his
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
bid ought to have been taken into
consideration.
5.8. He also relies upon another decision of the
coordinate bench of this Court in Aditi vs.
North-West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation3 more particularly para 4 thereof
which is reproduced here under for easy
reference:
4. The argument of respondent No.1 cannot be
accepted because admittedly there has been no
mistake on part of the Petitioner. He is qualified to
participate in the tender and his bid is the highest and
the bid is above the minimum reserve price fixed by
respondent No.1. It is not the case of the respondent
No.1 that it is availing the services of the Petitioner for
some service for which it has to pay the consideration
and it does not have the necessary financial resource
to be eligible to take shelter under the said ground.
Fixing minimum reserve price is the prerogative of the
respondent No.1. Nothing prevented respondent No.1
from fixing a higher amount as the minimum reserve
price. Having fixed the minimum price at
Rs.2,18,261/- per month as the licence fee,
respondent No.1 is bound to lease the premises for a
bid higher than the said amount. Thus, cancellation of
the tender under the circumstance has to be held
illegal.
WP 106551 of 2023 DD 9.11.2023
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
5.9. By relying on Aditi's case, his submission is
that there is no mistake on part of the
Petitioner. The Petitioner is qualified to
participate in the tender and as such, the
respondent ought to have permitted the
Petitioner to participate.
5.10. He relies on the decision of another Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Millipore India Private
Ltd -v- Government of India and others4,
more particularly para 2, 8, 17, 18 and 27
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
2. The Petitioner in this case is calling in question the
order at Annexure 'L' dated 15-10-2001 issued by the
2nd respondent. The facts leading to this petition are
as under:
The Petitioner a Registered Company is carrying on its
activities in the manufacture of high quality Water
Purification System. It has Head Office at Bangalore.
Millipore SAS BP 307 78054, Saint Quentin Yveliens
Cedex, France, are having factories at France and
United States of America and they are Joint Venture
Partners in the petitioner-Company. The Petitioner has
filed Annexure 'A' series Certificates issued by the
(2002) SCC online, Karnataka 72
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
Pollution Control Boards. The Petitioner has also
installed Water Purification Systems in institutions such
as Indian Institute of Science, National Institute of
Oceanography, Semi Biotech Research Laboratory,
National Institute of Ocean Technology, School of Bio-
Technology etc. The Petitioner has filed Certificates
Annexure 'B' series in this regard.
8. After hearing the Counsel two issues emerge for my
consideration;
(1) Whether the Petitioner can maintain a petition in
this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
2) Whether Annexure 'L' requires my interference.
17. In the light of the decisions, what is clear to me is
that to understand the cause of action, the Court has
to look into the material facts available on record. The
material at Annexure 'C' would reveal that Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India through
RITES Ltd. has invited sealed bids from eligible bidders
for supply of equipment listed below:
Schedule Brief Description Qty. in Nos.
No.
I Water Purification System 27
II COD auto Digestion Reactor 30
and Spectro Photometer
18. Annexure 'L' provides for the details in the matter.
It is seen from the schedule of requirements that
these equipments are also meant for the State of
Karnataka. It is evident from the schedule of
requirement at page 95. Moreover, in terms of Section
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
4 of the Contract Act, the place of contract is also a
relevant matter. Part of the Contract is also to be
performed in the State of Karnataka. In the light of
these bundle of facts and in the light of a clear
pronouncement of law, it cannot be said that there is
absolutely no cause of action at all that has arisen in
this Court. The Supreme Court in the above referred
cases has ruled that the averments in the petition and
the material facts would determine the nature of
cause of action. Therefore, in the light of the
performance of the Contract in part in Karnataka and
in the light of some equipments being made available
to the State of Karnataka, a part of the cause of
action has occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court and therefore, the preliminary objection in the
light of the material facts requires rejection and I do
so in the case on hand. The strong reliance of Oil and
Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994
AIR SCW 3287) is to be understood in the light of the
facts emerging from the pleadings of the case. In Oil
and Natural Gas Commission v. Uptal Kumar Basu
case there was no cause of action either in part or in
whole that arose in the jurisdiction of the Calcutta
High Court. It was in those circumstances, the Court
ruled that the Calcutta High Court lacks territorial
jurisdiction. That is not the case in the case on hand.
A part of cause of action has occurred in this State
and therefore, it cannot be said that this Court lacks
absolute jurisdiction warranting rejection on the
ground of want of jurisdiction by this Court. On facts,
this Court holds that part of cause of action has
occurred and that the petition is maintainable in this
Court.
27. In the case on hand, the relevant facts in the
prescribed Price Schedule in terms of the prescribed
form have not been taken into consideration. On the
other hand, Annexure I a document, which is not
forming part of the bidding document, has been relied
upon as a material deviation for rejecting the case of
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
the Petitioner. This in my view is nothing but an
arbitrary decision in terms of the Apex Court
Judgment. Therefore, Annexure 'L' requires to be set
aside on the peculiar facts of this case and in the light
of the discussion on the subject in this order. It is
unnecessary for me to go into as to whether there is
material deviation at all in the light of the various
terms read with Annexure I to the Price Schedule.
That question is left open.
5.11. By relying on Millipore India Private Ltd
case, his submission is that a Coordinate Bench
of this Court has held that the power conferred
under Article 226 can be exercised by the High
Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
territories within which the cause of action has
arisen. In the present case, the cause of action
having arisen within the jurisdiction of this
Court, this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction.
5.12. He relies upon Division Bench judgment of this
Court in The Karnataka Power Corporation
Limited -v- SICAL Logistics Limited and
others5, more particularly 11, 12, and 13
ILR 2007 Karnataka 226
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
11. We cannot but agree with the Learned Single
Judge's disapproval of the rejection of the second
respondent-SICAL's bid based on the decision of the
Technical Committee. The Technical Committee has
no place in the decision-making process, as per the
provisions of the Transparency Act and Rules. The
tender evaluation has to be made only by the Tender
Inviting Authority, the Tender Scrutiny Committee
and finally by the Tender Accepting Authority.
Therefore, we are in total agreement with the
Learned Single Judge's order quashing the
proceedings of the Technical Committee. We fully
appreciate the Learned Single Judge's anxiety that
the State and its instrumentalities should Act in a fair
manner that they should not resort to pick and
choose methods, that they do not either unduly
favour any tenderer and unreasonably eliminate any
tenderer from the field of competition.
12. However, the Learned Single Judge's direction for
re-notification, calling for fresh tenders is not wan-
anted. The matter ought to have remanded to the
authorities with a direction to redo the things from
the stage at which the flaw was noticed. In the
instant cases admittedly, the Tender Inviting
Authority has not prepared a list of qualified
tenderers, which is a mandatory requirement under
Rule 28(4) of the Transparency Rules. On the other
hand, the extra legal Technical Committee resolves to
open the second cover of the appellant-South India
Corporation Limited and the third respondent-
Karamchand and to return the price-bid of the second
respondent-SICAL. The very constitution of this
Technical Committee has no legal basis. Therefore,
its decisions cannot be acted upon. We fully affirm
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
the order of the Learned Single Judge in so far as it
pertains to the constitution and the findings of the
Technical Committee.
13. We are of the considered view that the process
has to be resumed from the stage at which the flaw is
noticed. The first flaw we noticed at the outset is not
drawing up the list of qualified tenderers, as per Rule
28 of the Transparency Rules. In that view of the
matter we feel it proper to set aside the order of the
Learned Single Judge directing re-notification of the
tender and direct the Tender Inviting Authority of the
appellant-KPCL to prepare the list of qualified
tenderers first and thereafter the Tender Scrutiny
Committee and the Tender Accepting Authority of the
appellant-KPCL shall do the evaluation and take a
decision in the matter in accordance with law. We are
setting aside that part of the Learned Single Judge's
order, which directs re-notification.
5.13. By relying on the SICAL Logistics case, his
submission is that a coordinate bench of this
Court has exercised jurisdiction to set aside a
tender and remanded the matter to consider it
from the stage it was left, and as such, this
Court could also exercise jurisdiction.
5.14. Though certain other judgments have been
produced, he does not refer to or rely upon
those judgments.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
5.15. His submission is that the rejection of the
tender of the Petitioner has been made on two
grounds. Firstly, on the ground that there is no
compliance with GST, and secondly, on the
ground that the necessary documents have not
been furnished. Insofar as GST is concerned,
his submission is that the requirement to
furnish the GST certificate and registration
details is only for the purpose of processing the
payments which would arise after the awardal
of the tender and not before. The Petitioner,
having applied for registration of GST, had
categorically informed the tender issuing
authority that the certificate would be furnished
once the registration was complete. Thereafter,
the Petitioner, having obtained the GST
registration, has complied with the
requirements.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
5.16. On enquiry as to whether the registration was
obtained before the evaluation of the bid
document, he submits that the said registration
certificate was obtained after the evaluation,
but that the Petitioner had informed the
respondents about the application having been
filed by the Petitioner. The requirement of GST
registration being only for the purpose of
payment and invoicing is a post-award
obligation and as such, a non-essential
obligation and in this regard, he relies upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Poddar
Steel Corporation -v- Ganesh Engineering
Works and Others6, more particularly para 6,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
6. It is true that in submitting its tender accompanied
by a cheque of the Union Bank of India and not of the
State Bank clause 6 of the tender notice was not
(1991)3 SCC 273
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
obeyed literally, but the question is as to whether the
said non-compliance deprived the Diesel Locomotive
Works of the authority to accept the bid. As a matter
of general proposition it cannot be held that an
authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to
every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous
detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical
irregularity of little or no significance. The
requirements in a tender notice can be classified into
two categories -- those which lay down the essential
conditions of eligibility and the others which are
merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to
be achieved by the condition. In the first case the
authority issuing the tender may be required to
enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be
open to the authority to deviate from and not to
insist upon the strict literal compliance of the
condition in appropriate cases. This aspect was
examined by this Court in C.J. Fernandez v. State of
Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 488] a case dealing with
tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation
as the present one, the observations in the judgment
support our view. The High Court has, in the
impugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
[(1979) 3 SCC 489] but has failed to appreciate that
the reported case belonged to the first category
where the strict compliance of the condition could be
insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not
insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice
which was an essential condition of eligibility,
bestowed a favour on one of the bidders, which
amounted to illegal discrimination. The judgment
indicates that the Court closely examined the nature
of the condition which had been relaxed and its
impact before answering the question whether it
could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the
tender in question. This part of the judgment
demonstrates the difference between the two
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
categories of the conditions discussed above.
However it remains to be seen as to which of the two
clauses, the present case belongs.
5.17. By relying on Poddar Steel Corporation case,
his submission is that in any contract/tender,
the essential condition of eligibility and other
conditions which are merely ancillary or
subsidiary, as per his submission, in respect of
the present tender, the GSTN registration is an
ancillary requirement and as such, cannot be a
ground for rejection of the tender.
5.18. He vehemently submits that the BSPA being for
a 12-year period with 150 MW capacity, the
reverse bid now offered to a successful tenderer
is Rs.. 2.54 lakh per MW which amounts to
Rs.38.1 crores, while he submits that
competitive rate would be Rs.1.775 lakhs per
MW, amounting to Rs.26.625 lakhs, 22 crores,
thereby a loss being caused to the exchequer of
more than Rs.12crores. On enquiry as to
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
whether this is the bid that the Petitioner has
submitted, his submission is that since the bid
of the Petitioner has been rejected at the
technical stage, it has not gone up to the
financial bid. Again, on enquiry as to whether
the Petitioner would submit a bid lesser than Rs
. 1.775 lakhs if so permitted, he does not make
any submission.
5.19. As regards the rejection of the technical bid of
the Petitioner on the ground of inadequate
documents, he submits that all the documents
have been provided.
5.20. The petitioner company was originally
incorporated as Malampati Power Private
Limited in the year 2013, and thereafter, the
name of the company came to be changed to
the name of the Petitioner with effect from 6-
03-2021. At the time of incorporation of the
company, the shareholders were M. Sudharani,
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
who held 4750 equity shares and one Jhansi
Lakshmi Balla, held 450 equity shares.
Thereafter, the shareholding pattern was
revised in terms of certification, which has been
issued by the Chartered Accountant. The
revised shareholding of the petitioner company
is M/s PSGG Tech Pvt. Ltd., holding 74% and
Mrs Akshay Karthikeyan and Associates LLP,
holding 26% as per the certification issued on
24th June 2025. Thus, he submits that it is the
shareholding of PSGG and Akshay that were
required to be considered by the respondents
and not the shareholding of Sudharani and
Lakshmibala.
5.21. By referring to the rejection made by
Respondent No. 1, he submits that Respondent
No. 1 has indicated that the qualification based
on the financial capability of the affiliates,
namely Leap India Food and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
and Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd., was
sought to be taken into consideration. Leap
India and Investors Clinic are not the affiliates
of the Petitioner and as such, there could not
have been a demand made by the respondents
to furnish the financial details of Leap India and
Investors Clinic. Respondents ought to have
taken into consideration the financial details of
PSGG and Akshay Karthikeyan, as well as their
parent companies.
5.22. His submission is that though the Petitioner had
made a payment of Rs.15 lakhs for the purpose
of studying the documents submitted by the
Petitioner, a proper study has not been made
by the respondents. The respondents have
erred in understanding the shareholding
pattern. Leap India is not an affiliate of the
petitioner company, but an affiliate of an
affiliate of the petitioner company. Leap India
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
does not have a shareholding of more than
50% in the petitioner company, and therefore,
the documents relating to Leap India could not
have been called for, and there was no
requirement for the Petitioner to furnish those
documents. Investors Clinic is a shareholder in
PSGG Tech Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, it is again
not an affiliate of the Petitioner, and for the
same reason, the respondents could not have
insisted on the financial details of Investor
Clinic.
5.23. The actions on the part of the respondents are
contrary to clauses 37.1, 37.2 and 37.3;
therefore, the actions on the part of the
respondents are bad in law. His submission is
also that the respondents have rejected the
Petitioner's bid on account of a lack of clarity
regarding the bidder's affiliates and not for
violation of the tender conditions. In such
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
circumstances, the respondents ought to have
sought clarity or clarification, which has not
been sought for and in this regard, he relies
upon the decision in Maha Mineral Mining &
Benefication (P) Ltd. v. M.P. Power
Generating Co. Ltd.,7, more particularly, para
19(ii) and (iii), 20 and 25 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
19. We are unable to accept such arguments for the
following reasons:--
(ii) It is nobody's case that the 1st respondent had
doubted the authenticity of the certificate but had
disqualified the appellant on the ground that Clause
5(D) mandated furnishing of the JV agreement alone
and nothing else to prove proportionate share in a
previous JV in order to use such experience.
(iii) Conditions in a NIT must be clear and
unambiguous. In the event the tendering authority
insisted on furnishing of the JV agreement alone and
no other document as proof of the proportionate share
of the bidder to avail previous JV experience as prior
qualification, it should have been spelt out clearly in
the NIT. Having not done so, the 1st respondent cannot
thrust the responsibility on the appellant to seek
clarification and submit such document. As Clause 5(D)
does not require submission of JV agreement itself to
(2025) SCC online, SC 1942
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
establish proportionate share in the JV whose past-
experience the bidder is seeking to use, non-
submission of such JV cannot be a ground to disqualify
the bidder for submission of incomplete documents in
terms of Clause 8.1 of NIT. Admittedly, the appellant
had submitted the work execution certificate, as
required under clause 5(D), which also unequivocally
sets out its proportionate share in the JV agreement
whose prior experience it had relied on.
20. In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold the
1st respondent acted contrary to the terms of the NIT
and unfairly rejected the appellant's bid for non-
production of JV agreement although Clause 5(D) did
not prescribe production of such agreement as
mandatory to rely on past-experience of such
consortium in which the bidder had a defined
proportionate share.
25. For these reasons, we remand the matter for a
fresh consideration whether appellant had requisite
spare washing capacity as per Clause 5(B) of the NIT
and the validity of the work order in favour of the 2nd
respondent in light of such decision. The High Court
shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible
preferably within two months from the date of
communication of this order.
5.24. Relying on Maha Mineral Mining's case, his
submission is that the respondents have acted
unfairly, have not sought clarification, and as
such, the awardal of tender has to be set aside,
and the matter remanded. He again reiterates
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
that the Petitioner has complied with all the
requirements. The Petitioner's annual turnover
is Rs . 176.07 crores, the Annual turnover of
Leap India is 155.09 crores, the Annual
turnover of Investors Clinic is 179.51 crores,
and therefore, the minimum requirements
being satisfied, the Petitioner's bid ought not to
have been rejected.
5.25. Lastly, he submits that a coordinate Bench of
this Court, having granted interim relief, having
thought it fit that there is a case made out by
the Petitioner, and as such, this Court ought
not to, at this stage, consider the
maintainability of the writ petition and relegate
the Petitioner to an alternate remedy. That
ought to have been done when the matter had
been taken up for consideration of the interim
relief.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
6. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 submits that,
6.1. The writ petition has been initiated by an
unsuccessful bidder to thwart the tender
process. There being four participants, it is only
the Petitioner who was declared non-responsive
due to multiple essential non-compliances. The
Petitioner, claiming that he has complied with
the tender conditions, would indicate that none
of the tender conditions have been challenged,
and as such, the present petition would have to
be adjudicated on the basis of the compliance
made by the Petitioner.
6.2. The Petitioner had submitted the bid on
8.07.2025, on the date of closure. The technical
bids were opened on 10.07.2025 and evaluated
by the Technical Evaluation Committee. The
Petitioner was declared non-responsive for
violation of clause 14, 37.1, 37.2, 37.3, which
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
was uploaded on the official tender portal on
19.07.2025 and communicated to the
petitioners vide the email ID, which is also
found mentioned in the portal.
6.3. He submits that the Petitioner, who claims to
have been in business since 2013, does not
even have a GSTIN certificate or GSTIN
registration for the last 12 years, which
indicates that the Petitioner company is a shell
company and has not carried out any business.
The application for registration of GST IN was
made only after submission of the bid.
According to him, GST registration is an
essential condition.
6.4. Insofar as the financial eligibility is concerned,
he submits that Clause 37.1, 37.2 and 37.3 are
the relevant provisions and it is for the bidder
to qualify and comply with those requirements.
He refers to the tender documents submitted
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
along with the written submission, more
particularly, letter dated 2.07.2025, being
format 7.6-format for financial requirement,
recorded at page 123, wherein the Petitioner
has himself stated that the name of the bidding
company is the Petitioner and the name of the
affiliates whose net worth is to be considered
has been shown to be Leap India Food and
Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Investors Clinic Infratech
Pvt. Ltd. It is on that basis he submits that the
financial documents of these two companies
were required to be furnished. Since they were
not so furnished, the technical bid of the
Petitioner was held to be unresponsive, as they
had not been rectified despite the defects
having been uploaded on the portal and
communicated to the Petitioner by email.
6.5. His submission is that the respondents have no
ill will towards the Petitioner. If the Petitioner
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
had complied with all the requirements, the
respondents would not have rejected the
technical bid which had been submitted. As
per the records that have been submitted, the
net worth of the petitioner company is less than
five crores. There is a contradiction in the
shareholding records inasmuch as when the
memorandum of association, which has been
furnished, indicates that the shareholding is
that of Mrs Sudarani and Mrs Jansi Lakshmi
Balla, the certificate issued by the Company
Secretary indicates the shareholders are PSGG
Technologies and Akshay Karthikeyan
Associates. There are no details which have
been furnished as regards how PSGG or Akshay
Karthikeyan Associates acquired shares and no
documents have been furnished in relation
thereto.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
6.6. In terms of clause (44.2), an affiliate shall
mean a company that directly or indirectly
controls or is controlled by or is under a
common control with the company developing a
project or a member in a consortium
developing the project. Thus, he submits that
the word 'controls', would mean the companies
in which the Petitioner has a substantial
shareholding, 'is controlled by' would mean
companies that have substantial shareholding
in the Petitioner. The shareholding in the
Petitioner, even according to the Petitioner is
that of PSGG holding 74% and Akshay
Karthikeyan holding 26%, there are no details
of any company in which the Petitioner holds
substantial shareholding which has been
provided and insofar as shareholders of the
Petitioner, Akshay Karthikeyan holding 20%,
not controlling the Petitioner, PSGG holding
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
75%, it is only PSGG's track record which can
be considered. Even then, the petitioners
having indicated that LEAP India and Investor
Clinics' financial details have to be considered,
those details have not been furnished, and as
such, no evaluation could be made in respect
thereto.
6.7. He submits that any doubt or clarification that
the Petitioner wanted, ought to have been
sought for in the pre-bid meeting and not after
submitting the bid and in this regard, he relies
upon the decision in Jagdish Mandal's case,
more particularly para 22 thereof, which is
extracted hereinabove, but, however, submits
that if the said tests were applied and the
answer was in the negative, this Court ought
not to intercede in the matter.
6.8. Insofar as reverse auction and the allegation
that a high price has been quoted, he has filed
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
a memo indicating the tenders by way of
reverse auction, which have occurred from
January 2025 to June 2025 in various southern
states, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
The Details of the rates (Rs/MW/Month) discovered in
tender floated by other utilities are as follows as
available in website of MERCOM:
State Entity Total Month of Name of Capacity Rates
capacity submisssion the Bidder (MW/MWh) Discovered
of Bid/e- in Tender
reverse in
auction (Rs/MW/M
onth)
Kerala KSEB 250 JAN -2025 M/s JSW 250 4,41,000
MW/ ENERGY MW/500
500 MWh
MWh
Telengana TGGENCO 250 FEB- 2025 M/S 50 MW/ 2,40,347
MW/ Bondada 100 MWh
500 Engineering
MWh
M/s Oriana 50 MW/ 2,45,152
Power 100 MWh
M/s Pace 125 MW/ 2,45,153
Digitek 250 MWh
Tamilnadu TNGECL 500 JUNE 2025 M/S 200 MW/ 2,46,000
MW/ Bondada 400 MWh
1000M Engineering
Wh M/s Oriana 50 MW/ 2,48,000
Power 100 MWh
M/s NLC 250 MW/ 2,48,000
India 500 MWh
Renewable
s
Karnataka KPTCL 350 April 2025 M/S Sarala 50 MW/ 2,45,000
(Previous MW/70 Project 100 MWh
awarded) 0 M Wh Works Pvt.
Ltd.
Chitradurga
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
M/s Oriana 50 MW/ 2,49,900
Power 100 MWh
Limited,
Noida,
Uttar
Pradesh
M/s Pace 250 MW/ 2,49,900
Digitek 500 MWh
Limited,
6.9. H Bengaluru
is submission is that the present reverse
tender, being for Rs.2,54,000/- is in pari
materia with the other tenders, though of
course it is a little higher than the others. His
submission is that though the Petitioner has
indicated that the appropriate bid would have
to be Rs.1,77,000/-, the Petitioner has not
come forward to offer such a price and as such,
said submission is only to create confusion and
nothing else. The State being required to
implement the project at the earliest, has gone
ahead with such implementation and no fault
can be found in relation thereto.
6.10. Lastly, he submits that there is a limited scope
of judicial review. The Petitioner has an
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
alternative remedy under section 16 of the
KTTP Act and it is for that reason that the
Petitioner would have to approach the appellate
authority which has been created for such
purpose and in that regard, he relies on NEC
Technologies India (P) Ltd., vs.
Shivamogga Smart City Ltd.,8 more
particularly para 18 and 19 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the
Petitioner to the decisions in the case of Larsen and
Tourbo Limited, West Bengal Electricity Board,
Monarch Infrastructure Limited, supra. The ratio laid
down in the aforesaid decisions do not apply to the
fact situation of the case in view of the obtaining
factual matrix which has been stated in the
preceding paragraphs. At this stage, it is relevant to
take note of Section 16 of the Karnataka
Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999
which reads as under:
"(1) Any tenderer aggrieved by an order passed by
the Tender Accepting Authority other than the
Government. under Section 13 may appeal to the
prescribed authority within thirty days from the date
of receipt of the order:
Provided that the prescribed authority may, in its
discretion allow further time not exceeding thirty
(2019) SCC Online Karnataka 4343
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
days for preferring any such appeal, if it is satisfied
that the appellant had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal in time.
(2) The prescribed authority may after giving
opportunity of being heard to both the parties pass
such order thereon as it deems fit and such order
shall be final.
(3) The prescribed authority shall as far as possible
dispose of the appeal within thirty days from the
date of filing thereof."
19. On this ground also, no interference is called for
as the Petitioner has an alternative efficacious
remedy of filing an appeal against an order passed
by the tender accepting authority under Section 16
of the aforesaid Act. In view of preceding analysis,
no case for interference in exercise of powers of
judicial review-under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is made out. However, the Petitioner shall
be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy which is
available to him under the Karnataka Transparency
in Public Procurements Act, 1999. Needless to state
that in case such an appeal is filed, the Appellate
Authority shall decide the appeal without being
influenced by any of the observations contained in
this order.
6.11. By relying on NEC Technologies' case, he
submits that the exercise of powers under
Article 226 for judicial review is to be exercised
in limited circumstances. The parties who are
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
aggrieved ought to be relegated to the appeal
remedy provided under the statute.
6.12. Heard Sri.Sahil sood, learned Counsel for
Sri.Mohsin Khan Pathan, learned Counsel for
the Petitioner, Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty for
Smt.D.J.Rakshitha, learned Counsel for
respondent No.1, Smt.K.P.Yashoda, learned
AGA for respondent No.4, Sri.Venkatanarayana,
learned Counsel for respondent No.5. Perused
papers.
7. The points that would arise for determination are:
1. Whether the Petitioner has made out any
case which would come within the purview
of the exceptions carved out in Jagdish
Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC
517]?
2. Whether the Petitioner has been
communicated with the defects, thereby
complying with the principle of natural
justice?
3. In the present case, whether the rejection
of the tender bid of the Petitioner on
account of the evaluation made is proper
and correct?
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
4. What order?
8. I answer the above points as follows:
9. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the Petitioner
has made out any case falling within the
exceptions carved out in Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517]?
9.1. Judicial review in matters relating to tenders
and award of public contracts stand
authoritatively delineated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa. Judicial review in such matters is
confined to examining the legality of the
decision-making process and does not extend
to evaluating the comparative merits of bids or
substituting administrative or technical
discretion with judicial opinion.
9.2. The exceptions carved out in Jagdish Mandal
operate at a narrow and high threshold. A
petitioner must establish either mala fides or
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
such manifest arbitrariness or irrationality that
no reasonable authority acting in accordance
with law could have arrived at the impugned
decision, coupled with demonstrable prejudice
to public interest.
9.3. From the material placed on record, it is
undisputed that as on the date of submission of
the bid, the Petitioner did not possess a valid
GST registration. The application for GST
registration was admittedly made only after
submission of the bid.
9.4. The tender conditions required bidders to
furnish GST registration details as part of the
bid documentation. Whether such a
requirement constitutes an essential eligibility
condition or a post-award compliance obligation
is governed by the tender terms themselves.
9.5. The tendering authority treated the absence of
GST registration at the bid stage as a material
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
non-compliance. I do not find any perversity or
irrationality in the authority adopting such an
interpretation, particularly when the tender
conditions themselves have not been
challenged as arbitrary, vague, or ambiguous.
9.6. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on Poddar
Steel Corporation's case does not advance
its case. The said decision itself recognises that
essential eligibility conditions must be strictly
complied with, and that the determination of
whether a condition is essential or ancillary lies
primarily within the domain of the tendering
authority.
9.7. The record further discloses that the Petitioner,
in its bid documents, identified certain entities
as its "affiliates" for the purpose of satisfying
financial eligibility criteria under Clauses 37.1 to
37.3 of the tender document.
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
9.8. Having so identified such entities as affiliates,
the Petitioner was required to furnish their
corresponding financial documents to enable
evaluation of net worth and turnover in
accordance with the tender conditions.
9.9. It is an admitted position that the requisite
financial documents pertaining to the identified
affiliates were not furnished along with the bid.
9.10. The Petitioner's subsequent contention that
such entities were not, in fact, affiliates within
the meaning of the tender conditions involves
questions of factual appreciation and
interpretation, which fall squarely within the
domain of the tendering authority and, where
permissible, the statutory appellate authority.
9.11. On the face of the record, the decision of the
tendering authority to evaluate the bid on the
basis of the Petitioner's own disclosures cannot
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
be characterised as arbitrary, irrational, or
perverse.
9.12. The technical evaluation resulted in the
Petitioner being declared non-responsive on
multiple grounds, including the absence of GST
registration and failure to satisfy financial
eligibility criteria based on affiliate disclosures.
9.13. The evaluation was undertaken with reference
to specific clauses of the tender document.
There is no material to indicate that the
eligibility criteria were altered, relaxed, or
applied selectively.
9.14. The Petitioner does not challenge the validity or
clarity of the eligibility conditions themselves,
but disputes the manner of their application.
Such a dispute, by its very nature, does not
attract the limited exceptions carved out in
Jagdish Mandal's case.
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
9.15. The Petitioner has contended that the tariff
discovered in the reverse auction is excessive
and detrimental to public interest.
9.16. The material on record indicates that the
reverse auction was conducted strictly in
accordance with the tender framework and that
the price discovered was a product of
competitive bidding.
9.17. The Petitioner admittedly did not participate in
the financial bid stage, having been declared
technically non-responsive. In such
circumstances, its assertion as to what
constitutes a competitive or appropriate tariff
remains speculative.
9.18. Price discovery through a reverse auction is a
function of market response, technical
parameters, and risk allocation. Absent
demonstrable mala fides or perversity, courts
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
are neither equipped nor entitled to determine
whether a particular tariff is "high" or "low".
9.19. The factual findings recorded above clearly
demonstrate that the rejection of the
Petitioner's bid was founded on identifiable non-
compliances assessed strictly with reference to
the tender conditions and the Petitioner's own
disclosures.
9.20. None of the grounds urged disclose mala fides,
favouritism, or such manifest arbitrariness or
irrationality as would warrant judicial
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
9.21. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 by
holding that the Petitioner has not made
out any case falling within the exceptions
carved out in Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517].
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
10. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the Petitioner
was communicated the defects, thereby
complying with the principles of natural
justice?
10.1. Having regard to the factual findings recorded
under Point No.1, particularly concerning the
absence of GST registration at the bid stage
and the non-furnishing of financial documents
relating to the affiliates identified by the
Petitioner, it becomes necessary to examine
whether the decision-making process suffered
from any infirmity on account of breach of
natural justice.
10.2. It is well settled that the principles of natural
justice do not apply to tender matters with the
same rigour as they do in adjudicatory or penal
proceedings. Competitive tendering is a
commercial process governed primarily by the
tender conditions, the need for certainty, equal
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
treatment of bidders, and strict adherence to
timelines.
10.3. Unless the tender document expressly
contemplates a post-bid clarification
rectification stage, the tendering authority is
under no obligation to afford an opportunity to
cure essential or material defects after
submission of bids. Any such latitude, if
extended selectively or otherwise, would itself
give rise to allegations of arbitrariness.
10.4. In the present case, the record discloses that
the Petitioner was informed of the rejection of
its bid and the grounds therefor through the
tender portal and registered electronic
communication. The communication specifically
indicated the clauses under which the bid was
treated as non-responsive.
10.5. Communication of reasons in the manner
contemplated under the tender framework
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
satisfies the requirement of procedural fairness
applicable to tender processes. Natural justice
in this context does not mandate a personal
hearing, pre-decisional notice, or iterative
correspondence with an individual bidder.
10.6. The Petitioner's contention that an opportunity
ought to have been afforded to clarify or
supplement documents is intrinsically linked to
the merits of the evaluation itself and not to the
legality of the decision-making process.
10.7. Accordingly, I find no violation of the principles
of natural justice either in the communication of
defects or in the manner in which the
Petitioner's bid was rejected.
10.8. I answer Point No.2 by holding that the
Petitioner was duly communicated the
defects, thereby complying with the
principles of natural justice.
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
11. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the rejection of
the Petitioner's tender bid on account of the
evaluation made is proper and correct?
11.1. While answering Point No.1, I have examined
the factual basis on which the Petitioner's bid
was declared non-responsive, namely, the
absence of GST registration at the bid stage
and the failure to furnish financial documents
relating to the affiliates identified by the
Petitioner itself.
11.2. The question under this point squarely concerns
the correctness of the evaluation and the
interpretation of eligibility conditions, including
whether certain requirements ought to have
been treated as essential or ancillary and
whether the Petitioner's explanations regarding
affiliates ought to have been accepted.
11.3. It is trite that a writ court does not sit in appeal
over tender evaluations. Re-assessment of
technical or financial compliance, or substitution
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
of the Court's opinion for that of the tendering
authority, lies outside the permissible scope of
judicial review.
11.4. The Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Act, 1999 provides a dedicated
statutory appellate mechanism under Section
16, which is expressly empowered to examine
the legality and correctness of tender decisions,
including issues relating to eligibility,
evaluation, and interpretation of tender
conditions.
11.5. Notwithstanding the availability of such an
efficacious alternative remedy, learned Counsel
for the Petitioner insisted that all issues be
decided by this Court on the ground that
interim relief had been granted earlier and that,
at the stage of granting such relief, the
Petitioner had not been relegated to the
statutory remedy. It si for that reason that all
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
contentions raised by the learned Counsel for
the Petitioner are answered.
11.6. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the
decision in Sri Chinnappa Reddy's case is
misplaced and inapplicable to the facts of the
present case. The Petitioner has failed to
comply with essential tender requirements,
inasmuch as the GST registration was not
furnished and the financial statements of the
associate companies identified by the Petitioner
were also not submitted. Though it is now
contended that the entities earlier identified as
associate companies are not associates but
merely shareholders of a shareholder of the
Petitioner, it is evident that the Petitioner itself
had consciously chosen and disclosed those
entities as its associates. Having done so, it
was incumbent upon the Petitioner to furnish
the requisite details and financials of such
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
entities, which admittedly has not been done.
The Petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted
to take advantage of its own omissions and
defaults.
11.7. The decision in Aditi's case is also inapplicable
to the present matter, as the disqualification
herein is directly attributable to the Petitioner's
own failure to submit the mandatory documents
as required under the tender conditions.
11.8. The decision in Millipore India Private Ltd.'s
case relates only to the scope of the power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and the circumstances in which such power
may be exercised. There is no issue concerning
jurisdiction in the present matter, and
consequently, the said decision has no
application.
11.9. The reliance placed on SICAL Logistics Ltd.'s
case is equally misconceived. That was a case
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
involving an extraordinary deviation from the
prescribed tender process, where the technical
committee assumed the role of the tender
inviting, scrutiny, and accepting authorities,
rendering the decision contrary to the
established procedure and the tender
documentation itself. It was in those
exceptional circumstances that interference was
warranted. No such extraordinary situation has
been demonstrated by the Petitioner in the
present case.
11.10. Despite being specifically called upon to state
whether the Petitioner was willing to stand by
its submission that the competitive rate was
₹1.775 lakhs per megawatt, learned Counsel
for the Petitioner refrained from making any
commitment. This clearly indicates that such
submission was made only with a view to try
and prejudice this Court and for no other bona
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
fide purpose. Acceptance of such a submission
would only derail and prolong the tender
process, which would not be in the interest of
the State or the tender issuing authority.
11.11. The explanations offered regarding transfer of
shares and change in shareholding, to contend
that only PSGG and Akshay's financials ought to
be considered, are of no avail when the
Petitioner itself had expressly selected and
nominated Leap India Food and Logistics Pvt.
Ltd. and Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd. as
its associates. Any attempt to alter this position
during the course of arguments, or even before
the tender issuing authority, is clearly
subsequent to the submission of the tender
documents and cannot enure to the benefit of
the Petitioner. The Petitioner must be held
accountable to the declarations and
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
documentation submitted along with the tender
and cannot be permitted to resile therefrom.
11.12. Considerable emphasis has been placed on the
payment of ₹15 lakhs by the Petitioner towards
the study of the documents, and on that basis it
is contended that the affiliates were not
properly identified by the concerned authority.
This contention is misconceived. The study
contemplated pertains to verification of the
veracity of the documentation supplied and
compliance with the applicable procedure. The
Petitioner itself having identified Leap India
Food and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Investors Clinic
Infratech Pvt. Ltd. as its associates, it was
never the obligation of the tender scrutiny
authority or the consultant to independently
determine who constituted the associates or
affiliates of the Petitioner or whose financials
ought to be considered. The autonomy to
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
identify such entities always rested with the
Petitioner. Having exercised such autonomy,
the Petitioner cannot later seek to resile from
its own declarations. On the financials being
submitted, the consultant could determine
whether the entities who were designated as
affiliates, were infact affiliates or not.
11.13. The reliance placed on the decision in Maha
Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd.'s
case is also misplaced. In the present matter,
there exists a clear and categorical requirement
under the tender conditions for the Petitioner to
produce its GST registration certificate to
enable verification of statutory filings, track
record, and executed works, as well as a
mandatory requirement to furnish the financials
of the associate entities to assess financial
capacity. These are substantive and essential
eligibility requirements. The Petitioner, having
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
failed to comply with these obligations, cannot
now contend that there was no requirement to
produce such documents prior to bid evaluation
or that the same could be furnished at a later
stage, including at the time of release of bills.
Such a contention is wholly untenable and
contrary to the tender framework.
11.14. In the totality of the circumstances, it is evident
that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate
any arbitrariness, perversity, or procedural
illegality in the decision-making process of the
tender issuing authority. The rejection of the
Petitioner's bid flows directly from its own non-
compliance with mandatory tender conditions
and its subsequent attempts to alter
foundational disclosures. No ground is made
out to warrant interference by this Court.
11.15. In the totality of the circumstances, the
disqualification of the Petitioner flows not from
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
any arbitrariness or procedural irregularity, but
from its own failure to comply with mandatory
tender conditions and its subsequent attempt to
alter foundational disclosures.
11.16. Judicial review under Article 226 does not
extend to condoning such defaults or rewriting
tender conditions to accommodate a non-
compliant bidder.
11.17. Accordingly, I answer Point No.3 by
holding that the rejection of the
Petitioner's bid on account of the
evaluation made is proper and correct.
12. Answer to Point No.4: What order?
12.1. Though this Court would ordinarily have
relegated the Petitioner to the appellate remedy
available under Section 16 of the Karnataka
Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999.
Despite the same having been brought to the
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
notice of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the
Petitioner insisted that all contentions be
addressed by this Court. Hence all contentions
have been answered above.
12.2. Having considered all submissions, and in light
of the Petitioner's admitted defaults in
complying with mandatory tender
documentation, particularly the non-submission
of financials of nominated affiliates, the
Petitioner has failed to make out any case
warranting exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.
12.3. The arguments advanced appear calculated to
protract the tender process and delay
implementation, which would have adverse
financial implications for the State and impact
timely availability of power to the public.
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
HC-KAR
12.4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed. Though this Court could have
imposed costs, it refrains from doing so.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN,PRS
List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1
