Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 935 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. EVERGREEN RECYCLEKARO INDIA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
CIN:U93030MH2010PLC211127,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
1603, ATRIUM B,
RUPA SOLITAIRE,
MILLENNIUM BUSINESS PARK,
MAHAPE, THANE,
MAHARASHTRA - 400 710.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. RUPESH D. CHITTE
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
SON OF DATTU SAMBHAJI CHITTE
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G L VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABRAHAM JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED
A UNION GOVERNMENT COMPANY
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
OUTER RING ROAD, NAGAVARA,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
Digitally
signed by
NAGARAJA B
M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
EMAIL ESDISPOSALS@BEL.CO.IN
2. MSTC LIMITED
A UNION GOVERNMENT COMPANY
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO. CF-18/2,
STREET NO.175, ACTION AREA 1C,
NEW TOWN, KOLKATA - 700 156.
ALSO HAVING ITS KARNATAKA
REGIONAL OFFICE AT:
MSTC LIMITED, 19/5 AND 19/6,
RD
3 FLOOR, KAREEM TOWER,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
EMAILS:
BLROPN9@MSTCINDIA.IN
SMOHANTY@MSTCINDIA.CO.IN
HELPDESKHO@MSTCINDIA.IN
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. LUDHVEENA LUTHRIA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. H M MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, CALLING FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO
AUCTION NO. MSTC/BLR/BHARATELECTRONICSLIMITED/12/
JALAHALLI/25-26/52197 UPLOADED ON RESPONDENT NO.2'S
WEBSITE ON 24.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND QUASH THE SAME AND ETC.,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
FRESH MATTERS LIST, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed calling in question
the legality and validity of Clause Nos.II.3.1, II.3.2, II.3.3
and II.3.5 of the tender notification uploaded by
respondent No.2 on 24.12.2025, whereby eligibility
conditions are prescribed for participation in the tender
process concerning safe crushing and recycling of
Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and VVPAT units.
2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the
business of E-Waste recycling and claims to possess valid
authorizations under the E-Waste (Management) Rules,
along with requisite statutory permissions from competent
authorities. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it
has successfully participated in similar tenders across the
country, including tenders floated by respondent No.1 in
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
earlier years, thereby demonstrating its technical
competence, experience, and regulatory compliance.
3. The grievance of the petitioner centers around
the introduction of impugned clauses in the present
tender, particularly Clause II.3.5, which mandates that
only those agencies having recycling facilities within the
State of Karnataka and possessing approvals from the
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) would be
eligible to participate. According to the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, such a condition is
territorial, exclusionary, and violative of principles of
fairness and competition, especially when the statutory
framework governing E-Waste permits interstate
movement and processing.
4. The petitioner further contends that it was not
even permitted to inspect the goods and was informally
discouraged from participating by being informed that it
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
would not be able to remit Earnest Money Deposit (EMD)
owing to territorial ineligibility.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Vinishma Technologies .vs. State of
1
Chhattisgarh and anothers
6. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose
the writ petition and justify the impugned conditions. It is
contended that the present tender is not an ordinary
commercial tender but pertains to disposal of highly
sensitive and regulated electronic waste, namely
decommissioned EVMs and VVPAT units, which require
strict adherence to environmental safeguards and
regulatory supervision.
1
[2025 SCC Online SC 2119]
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
7. It is further contended that pursuant to earlier
tenders, the respondent No.1 was subjected to repeated
scrutiny and compliance notices issued by KSPCB. The
records reveal that multiple communications were issued
by KSPCB pointing out deficiencies in compliances, the
petitioner, despite being called upon, failed to furnish
complete documentation, non-compliance notices were
issued on 14.03.2025 and a one-time authorization dated
12.08.2025 was granted by KSPCB subject to stringent
conditions.
8. Particular reliance is placed on the said
authorization, wherein KSPCB expressly stipulated that
preference should be given to Karnataka-based recyclers,
keeping in view the necessity of monitoring, inspection,
and environmental compliance. It is therefore contended
that the impugned clause is not arbitrary but is a direct
consequence of regulatory requirements imposed by the
statutory authority, namely KSPCB, and is aimed at
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
ensuring effective supervision and accountability in
disposal of hazardous electronic waste.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the following
judgments:
(i) Tata Celllular .vs. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC
651
(ii) Michigan Rubber(India) Limited .vs. State of
Karnataka and others [(2012) 8 SCC 216
10. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 and also the learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2. In light of the rival submissions, the
following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the impugned tender conditions, particularly
Clause II.3.5, are arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
(ii) Whether the petitioner can insist upon alteration or
relaxation of eligibility conditions prescribed in a tender
notification?
(iii) Whether the impugned conditions are justified in light
of regulatory requirements and environmental concerns?
Finding on Point No.(i):
11. Before adverting to the merits, it is apposite to
reiterate the settled principles governing judicial review in
contractual and tender matters. The law is no longer res
integra that the scope of interference by constitutional
courts in tender conditions is extremely limited. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that the
tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements
and courts should not sit in appeal over such decisions
unless the conditions are found to be arbitrary, mala fide,
tailor-made to exclude competition, or in violation of
statutory provisions.
12. The Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Act, 1999 (for short, “KTPP Act”) embodies
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
the principles of transparency, fairness, and
competitiveness, but it equally recognizes the autonomy of
the procuring entity to prescribe conditions necessary to
achieve the object of procurement. The object of the KTPP
Act is not to compel the authority to accept all bidders
irrespective of feasibility, but to ensure that eligibility
criteria are rationally connected with the purpose of
procurement.
13. The principal attack of the petitioner is on
Clause II.3.5, which restricts participation to entities
having recycling facilities within Karnataka. At first blush,
such a condition may appear exclusionary, however, the
surrounding circumstances cannot be ignored. The
material on record clearly indicates that the respondent
authority had faced repeated compliance issues in earlier
tenders, leading to intervention by KSPCB. The statutory
authority, being entrusted with environmental protection,
has mandated localized recycling to ensure continuous
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
monitoring, ease of inspection and immediate regulatory
intervention in case of violations.
14. The condition requiring in-state facilities is thus
not a standalone commercial stipulation but a regulatory
safeguard rooted in environmental governance. The
disposal of EVMs and VVPATs is not merely a scrap
disposal activity. It involves handling of sensitive
electronic components, compliance with environmental
norms and prevention of unauthorized reuse or data
compromise.
15. Therefore, the insistence on local facilities has a
direct nexus with the object of ensuring safe, secure, and
compliant disposal.
16. The petitioner has placed reliance on FAQs
issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
stating that interstate movement of E-Waste is
permissible. While the said clarification is not in dispute, it
does not mandate that every tendering authority must
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
allow interstate recyclers irrespective of situational
requirements. Permissibility under law does not translate
into enforceable entitlement to participate in every tender.
The tendering authority retains discretion to impose
conditions based on operational exigencies.
17. This Court finds that the impugned condition is
based on a recommendation by KSPCB, and is aimed at
ensuring regulatory compliance, Applies uniformly to all
bidders and does not single out the petitioner. In the
absence of demonstrable mala fides or manifest
arbitrariness, the condition cannot be struck down merely
because it renders the petitioner ineligible.
For the foregoing reasons, point No.(i) is answered in
the Negative.
Finding on Point No.(ii)
18. It is trite law that a bidder cannot dictate terms
of a tender. Participation in a tender is not a fundamental
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
right but a conditional privilege subject to eligibility
criteria. The Hon’ble Courts have repeatedly held that “A
prospective bidder cannot insist that the terms of
invitation to tender be tailored to suit its convenience or
business model.” If such a proposition is accepted, it
would render the entire tendering process unworkable and
defeat the autonomy of the procuring entity.
19. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned clauses
are founded on regulatory requirements imposed by
KSPCB. The conditions have a rational nexus with
environmental safety and compliance. No arbitrariness,
discrimination or mala fides are made out and the
petitioner cannot compel the respondents to dilute or alter
tender conditions.
Accordingly, Point No.(ii) is answered in the
Negative.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
Finding on Point No.(iii):
20. This Court is also persuaded to take note of a
crucial distinguishing feature in the present case, namely,
that respondent No.1, Bharat Electronics Limited, is not a
mere procuring or disposal agency, but a premier public
sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture of highly
sensitive and critical electoral instruments such as
Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The activity of disposal
of scrap EVMs is thus not an isolated commercial
transaction, but is intrinsically interlinked with its core
manufacturing operations, regulatory compliances, and
institutional credibility. Any lapse or non-compliance in the
process of disposal of such sensitive electronic waste,
particularly in the backdrop of repeated interventions and
directions issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board, may expose the respondent-company to serious
civil consequences, including jeopardizing its eligibility to
secure future manufacturing orders of national
importance. In that light, a certain degree of latitude must
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
be conceded to the respondent-company to incorporate
tender conditions that are aligned with, and indeed
necessitated by the guidelines and supervisory framework
of the competent environmental authorities. While the
petitioner’s right to participate in a transparent and
competitive tender process cannot be understated, such
right is not absolute so as to eclipse the equally significant
right of the procuring entity to safeguard its operational
integrity, regulatory compliance, and institutional
standing. The balancing of these competing considerations
becomes imperative, and this Court is of the view that the
principles underlying the Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Act, 1999 cannot be applied in a rigid or
doctrinaire manner divorced from the factual complexities
of a given case. Rather, a contextual and purposive
interpretation is warranted, wherein the interests of all
stakeholders, including the procuring entity, regulatory
bodies, and prospective bidders, are harmonized to
subserve the larger public interest.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
21. The further contention urged on behalf of the
petitioner that it had previously been awarded contracts
relating to disposal of EVM scrap by respondent No.1 and
that during the subsistence of such contractual
arrangement, all queries, objections, and compliance
requirements raised by the Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board were routed through respondent No.1 to the
petitioner, who in turn had effectively assisted in
addressing and reporting compliance issues, does not
commend acceptance at the hands of this Court. Merely
because the petitioner had, in the earlier contractual
regime, extended assistance in facilitating compliance
cannot elevate such circumstance into a legally
enforceable right to seek relaxation or dilution of the
eligibility conditions in a subsequent tender process. It is
to be noted that the earlier arrangement itself appears to
have necessitated continuous regulatory engagement,
including repeated communications and deficiency notices
from the Pollution Control Board, thereby evidencing that
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
the compliance mechanism adopted was neither seamless
nor free from regulatory concern.
22. In such circumstances, respondent No.1, being
Bharat Electronics Limited, cannot be faulted for revisiting
and restructuring its tender conditions in order to ensure
stricter adherence to statutory mandates and to align with
the explicit guidelines issued by the State Pollution Control
Board. The fact that the respondent-company was, under
the previous contract, compelled to channel all compliance
obligations through the petitioner is itself indicative of
operational constraints and regulatory vulnerabilities,
which the respondent now seeks to obviate by prescribing
more stringent and locally enforceable eligibility criteria.
Such a course of action, far from being arbitrary, reflects a
conscious and informed policy decision aimed at
minimizing regulatory risk and ensuring direct
accountability. Therefore, the petitioner’s reliance on its
past engagement and alleged assistance in compliance
cannot constitute a valid ground to compel the respondent
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
to relax or waive the impugned tender conditions,
particularly when such relaxation would run contrary to
the directives and supervisory expectations of the
competent environmental authority.
23. The apprehension expressed by the
respondents regarding regulatory consequences and
compliance burdens cannot be said to be illusory, but
rather reflects a legitimate concern in handling
environmentally sensitive materials.
24. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate
to observe that while competitiveness is a cornerstone of
public procurement, environmental compliance and
regulatory enforceability stand on a higher pedestal when
dealing with hazardous waste. The balance struck by the
respondents, guided by KSPCB, cannot be said to be
irrational or unconstitutional.
Accordingly, point No.(iii) is answered in the
affirmative.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
25. Upon consideration of the pleadings,
documents placed on record, and the settled principles
governing judicial review in tender matters, this Court
records its conclusions as follows:
(a) Insofar as the challenge to the impugned tender
conditions, particularly Clause II.3.5, on the ground
of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India is concerned, this Court is of the
considered view that the said condition does not
suffer from the vice of discrimination or manifest
arbitrariness. The requirement that participating
agencies must have recycling facilities within the
State of Karnataka is founded on a rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved, namely,
ensuring effective monitoring, regulatory supervision,
and strict compliance with environmental norms as
mandated by the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board. The condition applies uniformly to all bidders
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
and is neither tailor-made to exclude the petitioner
nor demonstrably mala fide.
(b) Insofar as the second point is concerned, it is
trite that a prospective bidder does not possess an
indefeasible right to insist upon modification,
relaxation, or tailoring of tender conditions to suit its
convenience. The authority floating the tender, more
particularly Bharat Electronics Limited, being the best
judge of its requirements, is entitled to prescribe
eligibility criteria in consonance with its operational
needs and regulatory obligations. Interference by this
Court in such matters is warranted only when the
conditions are shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or
actuated by mala fides, none of which are
established in the present case.
(c) Insofar as the third point is concerned, this Court
finds that the impugned conditions are fully justified
in light of the regulatory framework governing
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
disposal of E-Waste and the specific directions issued
by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The
insistence on localized facilities is not a mere
administrative preference but a regulatory necessity
aimed at ensuring continuous oversight,
environmental safety, and accountability. In matters
involving disposal of sensitive electronic waste such
as EVMs, environmental considerations and
compliance imperatives must necessarily outweigh
purely commercial considerations. The judgments
relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case
on hand as they are distinguishable on facts.
26. In view of the above findings, all the points for
consideration are answered against the petitioner and in
favour of the respondents.
27. For the foregoing reasons, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24464
WP No. 935 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed .
(ii) The impugned tender conditions
bearing Clause Nos. II.3.1, II.3.2, II.3.3 and
II.3.5 are held to be valid and enforceable.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) Pending interlocutory applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 113