VENKATESH B vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 8976 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESH B
S/O LATE BALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
NO.27, CHAMUNDINAGAR MAIN ROAD,
RT NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 032
2. ANJANEYA,
S/O LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
TH ST
NO. 100, 5 MAIN, 1 CROSS,
BANERGHATTA ROAD, B CHANDRA NAGAR,
ADUGODI, BANGALORE -560 030
3. CHANDRA REDDY,
S/O LATE VENKATA RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO 404/16, 18 A MAIN ROAD,
TH
13 CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT,
MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 560 068
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SAKSHI M KRISHNA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
3. BANGALORE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN,
NO. 30/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
MILLERS TANK BUND AREA, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 052
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BANGALORE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED,
CHAIRMAN, TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE,
NO. 30/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
MILLERS TANK BUND AREA,
VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560052
5.
6.
7.
8.
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - I
BANGALORE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED,
CHAIRMAN, TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE,
NO. 30/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
MILLERS TANK BUND AREA, VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560052
A.L. SATISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: PROPRIETOR
S.P.T ENTERPRISES,
NO.41, K.H. ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD)
BENGALURU-560027.
E.R. SANTHOSH
PROP. M/S SSRP AGENCY
NO.391, EAST OF NGEF,
SADANANDA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560038.
R. SATHEESH
PROP. M/S SATYA CONSTRUCTIONS
NO.600, DOWN BAZAAR ROAD,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY AG A/W
SRI. ADITYA SHUKAPURI., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRASHANTH CHANDRA.S.N., ADVOCATE
FOR C/R3 & ALSO FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI. S. MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY., AG A/W
SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA PUJAR., AGA A/W
SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
V/O/D 20.7.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE IN
R/O R6 TO R8 H/S)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 04.03.2026 AND
05.03.2026 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISMISSING A-A2)
AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE TENDER
CONDITIONS THE SAME BEARING INDENT NO. BSWML/2025-
26/SE0060/CALL-02, BSWML/2025- THE APPEALS FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE 26/SE0069/CALL-02 AND BSWML/2025-
26/SE0078/CALL-02 AND/OR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Orders dated
04.03.2026 and 05.03.2026 passed by the 2nd
Respondent dismissing the Appeals filed by the
Petitioners (Annexure - A - A2) as being arbitrary, illegal
and contrary to the tender conditions the same bearing
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
Indent No. BSWML/2025-26/SE0060/Call-02,
BSWML/2025-26/SE0069/Call-02 and MSWML/2025-
26/SE0078/Call-02; and or;
b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Tender
Evaluation Committee proceedings dated 31.12.2025
(Annexure B-82) chained by the Respondent insofar as
the Package No. 5, 14 and 23 are concerned; and/or
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents
to examine and re-verify the eligibility, technical
qualifications and statutory compliance of the competing
bidders in respect of the packages for which the
Petitioners have participated; and/or
d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents
to strictly enforce the eligibility and qualification criteria
prescribed under the Request for Proposal dated
30.07.2025 (Annexure - C) bearing No. DGM-
1/BSWML/TEND/08/2025-26 and to exclude bidders
who do not satisfy the mandatory technical, financial,
and statutory requirements; and/or
e) Grant such other consequential reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. The present writ petitions arise out of the tenders
issued by Respondent No. 3 in respect of Packages
No. 5, 14 and 23. The petitioners challenge the
declaration of the successful bidders in the said
packages on various grounds. The challenge is
directed against the findings recorded by the
appellate authority, which rejected the petitioners’
objections to the tender process.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
3. The grounds urged by the petitioners relate to the
constitution of consortiums and the use of credentials
in respect of Package No. 5, the declaration of the
successful bidder in respect of Package No. 14, and
the eligibility of Sathya Construction under the
tender conditions in respect of Package No. 23.
These grounds are considered separately.
Package No. 5
4. In respect of Package No. 5, the consortium
comprising E.R. Santhosh, Venkatesh B. and United
Developers was declared as L1. The petitioners
challenge the said declaration on the ground that
E.R. Santhosh had constituted a consortium
comprising M. Ramesh of M/s. A.K. Enterprises, S.
Raju of M/s. Saptagiri King Services, Naveen of M/s.
JNY Infrastructure Private Limited and Babu Reddy of
M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sakshi
Krishnan, submits that the consortium arrangements
and the credentials relied upon by the bidders are
contrary to the tender conditions. In support of this
contention, she also refers to the bid submitted by
Hanchi Ningappa Sathish Kumar in respect of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
Package No. 14. The said bidder had constituted a
consortium comprising V. Shobha, Proprietrix of M/s.
SLV Traders, Sunil G, Proprietor of M/s. Sunil
Enterprises, B.J. Basavaraju, Proprietor of M/s. Sri
Veerabhadraswamy Enterprises, and M.T.
Mayanagouda Jayaram, Proprietor of M/s. Sri
Sharada Enterprises.
6. The specific contention now urged is that Sunil G,
who is the proprietor of M/s. Sunil Enterprises, is also
a director of M/s. JNY Infrastructure Private Limited
and, therefore, could not have participated in both
consortiums.
7. The record, however, shows that this was not the
ground urged before the appellate authority. The
objection raised before the appellate authority was
that Sunil G was a member of the earlier consortium
of M/s. Professional Global Infrastructure Private
Limited, which is now M/s. JNY Infrastructure Private
Limited, and that the work completion certificate of
JNY Infrastructure had been fragmented and used in
different packages, including Packages No. 5 and 14.
8. The appellate authority rejected the said objection on
the ground that the petitioners had not produced any
material to establish that the work completion
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
certificates had been fragmented and used in the
different packages, as alleged. The petitioners have
not placed any material before this Court to dislodge
that finding.
9. The contention now urged regarding Sunil G’s
participation in both consortiums is distinct from the
objection considered by the appellate authority. Even
otherwise, the petitioners have not produced
material establishing that the alleged common
participation resulted in a violation of the tender
conditions or that the credentials of M/s. JNY
Infrastructure Private Limited were improperly used.
10. A challenge to the award of a tender must be
supported by material establishing a breach of the
tender conditions. The mere assertion that a person
was associated with two consortiums does not, by
itself, establish that the bid was invalid. In the
absence of material demonstrating the alleged
violation, this Court cannot interfere with the finding
of the appellate authority.
11. Accordingly, the challenge to the declaration of L1 in
respect of Package No. 5 is rejected.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
Package No. 14
12. In respect of Package No. 14, Petitioner No. 2 had
challenged the declaration of A.L. Satish Kumar as
L1, contending that the said declaration was contrary
to law.
13. During the pendency of the present proceedings,
Petitioner No. 2 has expired. The bid submitted by
Petitioner No. 2 was in his individual capacity. The
challenge to the declaration of L1 in respect of
Package No. 14 is, therefore, confined to the
individual bid submitted by the deceased petitioner.
14. In these circumstances, the challenge to the
declaration of L1 in respect of Package No. 14 cannot
be continued by the remaining petitioners. The
proceedings, insofar as they relate to the individual
bid of Petitioner No. 2, stand abated.
Package No. 23
15. In respect of Package No. 23, Sathya Construction
was declared as L1. The petitioners contend that
Sathya Construction was ineligible to participate in
the tender in view of Clause 2.2.13 of the tender
conditions.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
16. Clause 2.2.13 reads as follows:
“2.2.13. A bidder in the last 5 (five) years, he neither failed to
perform on any contract, as evidenced by imposition of a
penalty by an arbitral or judicial authority or a judicial
pronouncement or arbitration award against the Bidder, as the
case may be.”
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the
order dated 18.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.
3, whereby the Work Order dated 10.08.2020 issued
to Sathya Construction is stated to have been
cancelled on the ground that the contractor did not
possess the requisite qualifications.
18. According to the petitioners, the cancellation of the
earlier work order establishes that Sathya
Construction had failed to perform its contractual
obligations and was, therefore, disqualified under
Clause 2.2.13. The petitioners contend that Sathya
Construction could not have been declared L1 in
respect of Package No. 23.
19. The record, however, shows that the objection raised
before the appellate authority was different. The
petitioners had contended that Sathya Construction
did not possess the requisite number of vehicles,
particularly auto tippers, for execution of the work.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
They had also contended that Sathya Construction
had been disqualified in respect of Package No. 32
and, therefore, could not have been declared L1 in
the other packages.
20. The appellate authority considered the bids
submitted by Sathya Construction in respect of
Packages No. 9, 32 and 23. It noted that the
documents submitted by Sathya Construction in
support of its qualifications were substantially the
same in all three packages. It further noted that
Sathya Construction had been held qualified in
respect of Packages No. 32 and 23.
21. On that basis, the appellate authority held that the
disqualification of Sathya Construction in respect of
Package No. 9 could not, by itself, result in its
disqualification in respect of Package No. 23. The
appellate authority also took note of the fact that
Sathya Construction had not challenged its
disqualification in respect of Package No. 9. It
therefore declined to treat that disqualification as
sufficient to invalidate the declaration of Sathya
Construction as L1 in respect of Package No. 23.
22. The finding of the appellate authority was based on
its assessment of the qualification documents
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
submitted by Sathya Construction and the
circumstances relating to the different packages. The
petitioners have not produced any material to
establish that the documents considered by the
appellate authority were invalid or that the
assessment made by it was contrary to the tender
conditions.
23. The ground now urged under Clause 2.2.13, based
on the cancellation of the earlier work order dated
10.08.2020, was not raised before the appellate
authority. Nevertheless, even on the basis of the
material referred to by the petitioners, the
cancellation of the work order does not, by itself,
establish disqualification under the said clause.
24. Clause 2.2.13 requires the failure to perform a
contract to be evidenced in the manner specified
therein, namely, by imposition of a penalty by an
arbitral or judicial authority, a judicial
pronouncement or an arbitration award. The order
relied upon by the petitioners is stated to have
cancelled the earlier work order on the ground that
Sathya Construction did not possess the requisite
qualifications. The petitioners have not demonstrated
that the said cancellation satisfies the requirements
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
of Clause 2.2.13 or that it constitutes a
disqualification under the tender conditions.
25. The petitioners have thus failed to establish that
Sathya Construction was ineligible under Clause
2.2.13 or that the appellate authority’s findings in
respect of Package No. 23 are contrary to the tender
conditions. The challenge to the declaration of
Sathya Construction as L1 in respect of Package No.
23 is, therefore, rejected.
26. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to
tenders is limited. This Court does not sit in appeal
over the decision of the tendering authority or the
appellate authority. Interference is warranted only
where the decision is shown to be arbitrary,
irrational, mala fide or contrary to the tender
conditions. The petitioners have not established any
such ground in the present proceedings.
27. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no
infirmity in the findings of the appellate authority
warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
28. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59240
WP No. 8976 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010201232026
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
ii. The dismissal of the above petition will not
come in the way of the petitioner participating
in any tender already issued by respondent
No.3 or to be issued by respondent No.3 in
future.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6