KARIYAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA NADUVINAMANI, vs THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026




PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI


WRIT APPEAL NO.100449 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

KARIYAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA NADUVINAMANI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. CLASS I CONTRACTOR,
R/O. VTC ANKASAPUR, PO MEDLER,
DIST: HAVERI-581211.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI.U.J.HAVALDAR,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RD RD
3 FLOOR, M.S BUILDING, 3 GATE,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
(PCCF) AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE (HOFF),
TH TH
ARANYA BHAWAN, 14 FLOOR, 18 CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.











Digitally signed by
PRATIBHA M
PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.15
14:30:06 +0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


3. DEPUTY CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
HAVERI TERRITORIAL DIVISION,
OPP. DISTRICT TEACHER TRAINING CENTER
(DIET), KARJAGI ROAD, HAVERI-581110.

4. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
HANGAL SUB-DIVISION.

5. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
DEPARTMENT OF WILD LIFE
SUB-DIVISION RANNEBENNUR.

6. GAZETTED MANAGER,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST HAVERI DIVISION,
OPPOSITE DISTRICT TEACHER TRAINING
CENTER (DIET), KARJAGI ROAD,
HAVERI-581110.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAKESH M.BILKI, GOVT. ADVOCATE)


THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/07/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.108016/2025; AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
[

The appellant is before the Court calling in question the
order passed in W.P.No.108016/2025 dated 15.07.2026,
whereby the learned Single Judge declined to accept the plea of
the petitioner that he was entitled to his technical bid being
allowed in a tender process.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Uroojahmed J.
Havaldar appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri. Rakesh M. Bilki for
respondents No.1 to 6.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

3.1. The appellant claims to be in the field of
construction and claims himself to be entitled to participate in
the tender process, which had invited bids for works under the
Department of Forest on 30.09.2025. He applied, claiming
relaxation in terms of Government Order dated 21.08.2024,
which permitted relaxation of past experience under Category-
II(A) tenderers, along with persons belonging to the Scheduled

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The technical bid of the appellant
comes to be rejected, and the said rejection was challenged
before this Court in the said writ petition.

3.2. The interim order of stay was granted initially owing
to the fact that the order of rejection of technical bid was
contrary to the Government Order of the year 2024, which had
permitted such relaxation.

3.3. The writ petition ultimately comes to be rejected on
the score that any work or similar work that was found in the
Government Order, would not apply to forest works, but it
would apply to construction works. The writ petition thus comes
to be dismissed following a judgment of another learned Single
Judge in the case of M. BASAVANNA v. STATE OF
1
KARNATAKA . The rejection of the writ petition has driven the
appellant to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
reiterate the grounds that were urged before the learned Single
Judge principally on the score that his right to participate in the

1
W.P. No.18843/2021, decided on 16.12.2021.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


tender is taken away notwithstanding the fact that the present
tender notification runs counter to the model tender document
or the Government Order as the case would be. The learned
counsel further submits that once relaxation is granted for the
purpose of past experience by issuance of a Government Order
that should ipso facto be made applicable to any tender that is
notified by the State. Segregation of tenders would be a
whimsical act on the part of the State.

5. Contrariwise, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State would refute the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant to contend by
placing reliance upon a particular circular which permits every
department to impose certain other conditions apart from the
conditions found in the Government Order itself. He would
submit that on the strength of this document it was valid for
the Forest Department to demand that the work of planting of
saplings should be the past experience.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the material on record.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026



7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The
appellant, claiming to be eligible to participate in the tender
notification dated 30.09.2025, accordingly participated therein.
The tender was not for any construction work; it was for the
purpose of planting of saplings. Clause No.3 of the tender
document, which is the offending clause now, reads as follows:
“Satisfactorily completed Forestry works like Advance
Work, Raising & Maintenance of Seedlings works as prime
contractor of Last three years.

Successful completion at least one similar work of value
not less than the estimated cost and 2 years maintenance
in previous three years equal to the estimated quantity.
The necessary work done certificate must be obtained not
below the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forests”

The experience that is necessary in terms of the tender
document was satisfactory completion of one similar work of
value not less than estimated cost and two years maintenance
in previous three years of the estimated quality. The tender
was called not for any construction, but for planting of saplings.
The planting of saplings in our considered view cannot be
construed to be a construction work. We are in respectful
agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


in M. BASAVANNA supra , wherein the learned Single Judge
has held as follows:
“This writ petition is structured on the premise that
the reservation has not been provided to the members of
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe in the matter of award
of contract of Government Work through tender. Learned
counsel for the petitioners passionately submits that the
welfare policies meant for the upliftment of the
downtrodden communities are not scrupulously observed
by the State Authorities.

2. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents
opposes the writ petition contending that the
workscomprised in the subject tender are not
Construction Works as defined under Section 2(a) of the
Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act,
1999, and therefore, grievance of the petitioner is
imaginary; so contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ
petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the petition papers, this
Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter
inasmuch as, the right to preferential allotment of
tender work which the petitioner is ventilating is
confined to Construction Works whereas, the works
comprised in the tender are other than construction
works. Section 2(a) of the 1999 Act defines the
term Construction Works to mean "putting up,
demolishing, repairs or renovation of buildings,
roads, bridges or other structures including
fabrication of steel structures and all other civil
works".

4. The vehement submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners that even in respect of
works of the kind earlier, reservation was provided,
does not come to their aid since the rights to be
claimed under the Reservation Policies of the State
are treated as an exception to the general rule of
equality and therefore, the claimants have to show
that they fit into the category of such exceptions,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


which the petitioners are unable to demonstrate
here.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition
being devoid of merits, fails.

However, it is open to the petitioners to seek award
of contract if & when the tender to be issued involves
"Construction Works" as mentioned above.

Costs made easy.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The learned Single Judge holds that construction work would
clearly indicate putting up, demolishing, repairs, renovation of
buildings, roads, bridges, inter alia , while the present tender is
not for any construction. It is for the purpose of planting
saplings. The reliance placed by the State upon the particular
circular issued on 25.11.2022 would become applicable to the
case at hand. The circular reads as follows:
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ

120 2022
¸ÀASÉå:C¥Àfà J¥sï J¦ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ
§ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ
25.11.2022
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:
EªÀjAzÀ,
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
CgÀtå, fë¥Àj¹Üw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj¸ÀgÀ E¯ÁSÉ,
§ºÀĪÀĺÀr PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

EªÀjUÉ,
¥ÀæzsÁ£À ªÀÄÄRå CgÀtå ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ¢üPÁj,

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


(CgÀtå ¥ÀqÉ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ),
CgÀtå ¨sÀªÀ£À, ªÀįÉèñÀégÀA,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ.
«µÀAiÀÄ: CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉUɸÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ½UÉ KPÀ
gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä E¯ÁSÁ DAvÀjPÀ
Standard Tender
¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£ÀAvÉ ¹zÀÞ¥Àr¹zÀ
Document
UÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

KFD/HOFF/A4(VEH)/8/2022-HQC-
G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä KPÀ PÀqÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå:
KFD (754562).

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ KPÀ PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ CgÀtå
E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ½UÉ KPÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è mÉAqÀgï
¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä E¯ÁSÁ DAvÀjPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£ÀAvÉ ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¹zÀ
Standard Tender Document
UÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

Standard Tender Document
PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀj £À ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ
®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

Tender Dotument
F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¤§AzsÀ£É/µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀßAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ.

1
. ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸À¯ÁzÀ ªÀiÁzÀj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ C£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ
DUÁUÉÎ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ DzÉñÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉUÀ¼À°è£À ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀ C£ÀĸÁgÀ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ

2 50.00 SC/ST
. gÀÆ. ®PÀëUÀ½VAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ mÉAqÀgÀÄUÀ¼À°è UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀjUÉ
DzÀåvÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉ.n.¦.¦. PÁ¬ÄzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«zÀÄÝ,
CzÀPÀÌ£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV mÉAqÀgÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ¥ÁðqÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ.

3 Section 1 ITT GCC
. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀÄ°è£À ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ
CUÀvÀå«zÀÝ°è PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É «±ÉõÀ ¤¢ðµÀÖ
Special Conditions of Contract (SCC)
CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À°èC¼ÀªÀr¸À®Ä
PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

4 Standard Tender Document
. PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀj £À zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß mÉAqÀgï
DºÁ餸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è mÉAqÀgï zÁR¯ÉUÉ CAVÃPÁgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ
C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ mÉAqÀgï PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026



5.
PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼ÀÄ/¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉUÀ¼À°è£À
CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

657 5/2022
F ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ n¥Ààt ¸ÀASÉå: DE ªÉZÀÑ-
21.11.2022
¢£ÁAPÀ: gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀßAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ,
sd/-
(¸ÀįÁÛ£À ¨ÉÃUÀA)
±ÁSÁ¢üPÁj,
CgÀtå, fë¥Àj¹Üw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj¸ÀgÀ E¯ÁSÉ
(CgÀtå -J)

The circular permits varying with the standard tender document
by permitting imposition of special conditions on a contract.
The special conditions are now imposed by the Forest
Department with regard to work experience of planting of
saplings. It is rudimentary that construction work would not
amount to planting of saplings, which would require a separate
skill or altogether different skill. In that light, the learned Single
Judge declines to accept the plea of the petitioner on all
fours,for the following reasons:
“Whether Clause No.3 of the impugned
tender notification insisting upon prior experience
in similar forestry works is arbitrary or contrary
to the Government Orders dated 03.02.2024 and
21.08.2024 warranting interference under Article
226 of the Constitution?”


Findings on point for consideration :

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


12. This Court has given anxious consideration to
the rival submissions and carefully examined the records.
The controversy essentially turns upon the scope and
applicability of the Government Order dated 03.02.2024
and the subsequent Government Notification dated
21.08.2024.

13. The Government Order dated 03.02.2024 was
issued after amendment to the proviso under Section 6 of
the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act,
1999. The object behind issuance of the Government
Order was to facilitate greater participation of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe contractors in tenders relating
to construction works up to the prescribed monetary limit.
The Government accordingly modified the Standard
Tender Documents by relaxing the experience
requirement. Instead of insisting upon completion of one
similar work to the extent of 50% of the estimated cost,
the Government substituted the condition by permitting
experience in any construction work to the extent of 25%
of the estimated cost.

14. The Government Notification dated 21.08.2024
merely extended the benefit of the very same
modifications to contractors belonging to Category-I and
Category-II(A) backward classes. Significantly, paragraph
(2) of the notification specifically declares that the order
shall apply for invitation of tenders for procurement of
construction works. Equally significant is paragraph (3),
which stipulates that there shall be no change in the
remaining clauses of the Standard Tender Documents.

15. Therefore, the language employed in both the
Government Orders leaves no room for ambiguity. The
relaxation is confined only to procurement of construction
works. Neither the Government Order nor the subsequent
notification manifests any intention to extend the benefit
to every category of procurement irrespective of the
nature of work.

16. The argument advanced by the petitioner
proceeds on the assumption that once the tender is
reserved for Category-II(A), every tender condition
relating to experience automatically stands substituted by

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


the expression “any work”. Such an interpretation would
amount to rewriting the Government Order itself.

17. The Court cannot ignore the specific words
consciously employed by the Government. The policy
itself confines to include specialised forestry operations. It
is well settled that where the language of a policy decision
is plain and unambiguous, the Court cannot add words or
substitute expressions under the guise of interpretation.

18. The impugned tender pertains to plantation
activities, raising of seedlings and maintenance of
saplings for the stipulated period. These activities involve
specialised technical expertise in forestry management,
survival of plantations, maintenance schedules, soil
conditions, species selection and ecological parameters.
The employer, being the best judge of its requirements, is
entitled to insist that only persons possessing previous
experience in similar forestry operations are eligible to
compete.

19. The insistence upon specialised experience
cannot be characterised as irrational or arbitrary merely
because the tender is reserved for a particular category.
Reservation in public procurement cannot obliterate the
essential technical qualifications prescribed for successful
execution of the work.

20. The records further disclose that wherever
tenders issued by the Forest Department included
construction components, the authorities have in fact
incorporated the relaxed eligibility clause by specifically
referring to “any construction work” to the extent of 25%
of the estimated cost for reserved tenders. Learned AGA
has rightly pointed out that in an earlier tender
notification dated 26.03.2026, the modified clause
expressly provided:

“Satisfactory completion as a prime
contractor for at least any construction work to
an extent of 25% of the cost of the work (For
reserved tenders).”

21. The very incorporation of such a clause in
construction tenders reinforces the respondents’

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


contention that the Government Orders are intended only
for construction contracts. The absence of such a clause
in the present forestry tender is therefore neither
accidental nor arbitrary but is consistent with the
Government policy itself.

22. The Coordinate Bench judgment relied upon by
the learned AGA also supports the stand of the
respondents. The Coordinate Bench has already examined
the definition of ‘construction works’ and has held that
forestry activities cannot be equated with construction
works so as to attract the benefit of the Government
Order. This Court finds itself in respectful agreement with
the said view. The contention of the petitioner that the
object of the Government Order was to widen
participation cannot be disputed. However, while
promoting participation of reserved category contractors,
the Government has simultaneously confined the
relaxation to construction works alone. The Court cannot
ignore the latter part of the policy while giving effect to
the former.

23. It is equally well settled that prescription of
eligibility criteria lies primarily within the domain of the
tendering authority. Unless the conditions are
demonstrated to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or
tailored to favour a particular bidder, judicial review
remains extremely limited. The Court does not sit as an
appellate authority over the wisdom of the employer in
prescribing technical qualifications.

24. Sections 2 and 6 of the Karnataka
Transparency in Public Procurements Act also do not
advance the petitioner’s case. The Act undoubtedly seeks
to ensure transparency, fairness and competitiveness in
public procurement. At the same time, the Act recognises
the authority of the procuring entity to prescribe
appropriate eligibility criteria having regard to the nature
of the work. The impugned condition requiring previous
forestry experience bears a direct nexus with the object
sought to be achieved, namely successful execution of
plantation and maintenance works. Therefore, it cannot
be termed either arbitrary or violative of the provisions of
the Act.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026



25. The petitioner admittedly has no previous
experience in forestry works of the nature stipulated in
Clause No.3. Once he failed to satisfy the essential
eligibility criterion, the Tender Technical Evaluation
Committee was justified in declaring his bid technically
non-responsive. This Court finds no infirmity either in the
decision-making process or in the eligibility condition
itself.

26. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of
the considered opinion that:


a) The Government Order dated 03.02.2024
and the Government Notification dated
21.08.2024 apply only to procurement of
construction works;


b) The present tender relates exclusively to
forestry operations involving plantation,
raising and maintenance of seedlings and
therefore falls outside the scope of the
aforesaid Government Orders;


c) Clause No.3 prescribing previous experience
in similar forestry works is a reasonable and
valid eligibility condition having direct nexus
with the nature of work;


d) The petitioner admittedly did not satisfy the
essential technical qualification and
consequently the rejection of his technical
bid does not suffer from arbitrariness,
illegality or procedural impropriety
warranting interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Accordingly, the point for
consideration is answered in the ‘ negative’ .

27. For the forgoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following;
ORDER

(i) The writ petition is dismissed .

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026



(ii) The challenge to Clause No.3 of the tender
notification dated 30.09.2025 and the
consequential proceedings dated 23.10.2025
fails.


(iii) All pending interlocutory applications, if any,
stand disposed of.


(iv) No order as to costs.”



8. The Apex Court in the case of BIHAR
INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SCOPE
2
SALES PRIVATE LIMITED observes that interference is not
warranted in an intra-Court appeal, unless the impugned order
broods perversity and holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
13. We must also bear in mind the nature and
extent of jurisdiction that an intra-court appellate
Bench of a high court exercise. Such appellate
jurisdiction is conferred either under the Letters
Patent or by the relevant statutory provisions. It is
pertinent to note that both - Single Bench and
Division Bench - exercise the same jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view,
the exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction is
warranted only where the judgment or order under
challenge is demonstrably erroneous or suffers from
perversity. Such jurisdiction ought not to be invoked
merely because another view is possible on the
same set of facts, particularly where the view
adopted by the Single Judge is a plausible and
reasonable one. In other words, an intra-court

2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 112

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


appellate Bench ought not to substitute its own
view, merely because such Bench considers its view
to be better than the one taken by the Single Bench;
so long as the view taken by the Single Bench is a
plausible one, interference should stay at a
distance.

14. We find it profitable to refer to certain
precedents, relevant paragraphs wherefrom are
reproduced below:

14.1 In Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami
15
Temple , it was held:

2. Mr Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants, inter alia contends that the Letters
Patent Bench of the High Court could not have
upset a finding of fact recorded by a learned
Single Judge on fresh reconciliation of the two
documents, arriving at different results than those
arrived at earlier by the two courts
aforementioned. Though the argument sounds
attractive, it does not bear scrutiny. Against the
orders of the trial court, first appeal lay before the
High Court, both on facts as well as law. It is the
internal working of the High Court which splits it
into different ‘Benches’ and yet the court remains
one. A letters patent appeal, as permitted under
the Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court
appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench,
sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own
orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was
vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an
appeal against an order of a subordinate
court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High
Court exercises the powers of a Court of
Error. So understood, the appellate power
under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in
contrast to what is ordinarily understood in
procedural language. That apart the
construction of the aforementioned two
documents involved, in the very nature of their
import, a mixed question of law and fact, well
within the powers of the Letters Patent Bench to
decide. The Bench was not powerless in that
regard.

(emphasis ours)

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026



14.2 This Court in Narendra & Co. (P)
16
Ltd. v. Workmen noted that:

5. … Be that as it may, in an intra-court
appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the
Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that
the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it
shall not disturb the same. Merely because
another view or a better view is possible,
there should be no interference with or
disturbance of the order passed by the
Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a
fairer approach on relief.

14.3 On whether a remand could be ordered in
exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, this Court
in Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service
17
Commission expressed reservations in the following
words:

3. We have very serious reservations
whether the Division Bench in an intra-court
appeal could have remitted a writ petition in
the matter of moulding the relief. It is the
exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The learned Single Judge as well as
the Division Bench exercised the same
jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to
the litigants, another tier of screening by the
Division Bench is provided in terms of the
power of the High Court but that does not
mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to
the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding,
the Division Bench was called upon, in the
intra-court appeal, primarily and mostly to
consider the correctness or otherwise of the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs
to consider the appeal(s) on merits by
deciding on the correctness of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge, instead of
remitting the matter to the learned Single
Judge.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


18
14.4 In AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee , while
referring to its decision in Narendra (supra), this Court
observed as follows:

41. The position is, thus, settled that in an
intra-court writ appeal, the appellate court
must restrain itself and the interference into
the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge is permissible only if the judgment of
the learned Single Judge is perverse or
suffers from an error apparent in law.
However, the Division Bench, in the present
case, failed to record any such finding and
rather, proceeded to delve into extensive
reappreciation of evidence to overturn the
judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(emphasis ours)

15. Bearing in mind the larger public interest that
was involved coupled with the fact that the plot of land in
question was sought to be reserved for establishment of
an educational institution, we are of the firm opinion that
dismissal of the writ petition was an available option for
the Single Judge. The view taken by the Division Bench
that BIADA lacked the authority to cancel the allotment
though prima facie may appear to be appealing, yet, the
same is debatable.

15.1 Applying the principles governing the exercise
of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, as laid down in the
aforesaid precedents, to the facts of the present case, we
observe that judicial discipline demanded due
deference to the exercise of discretion by the court
of first instance, particularly when such discretion
was exercised on relevant considerations. The
Single Judge having refused exercise of discretion
on a ground which, in our opinion, is valid, the
Division Bench ought to have been loath to allow
the writ petition, and that too in exercise of its
intra-court appellate jurisdiction. The judgment and
order of the Single Judge was far from being wholly
incorrect or perverse.”
(Emphasis supplied)

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16703-DB
WA No. 100449 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020127722026


In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court,
the subject appeal being an intra-court appeal, unless we find
perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we
would not interfere with the order so passed as a matter of
course. Despite the valiant effort on the part of the appellant to
convince the Court, the appellant has failed to make out any
ground warranting interference with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal must fail as we
find no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands
rejected .

10. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed as not calling for adjudication.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE



Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
PMP/CT:VH / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14