Forest Contractor’s Sapling-Planting Bid Rejection Stands As Karnataka HC Says Experience Relaxation Covers Construction Works Only

The Forest Department invited tenders on 30 September 2025 for forestry work involving plantation, raising seedlings and maintaining saplings.

The tender required bidders to have completed similar forestry work, including two years’ maintenance.

Kariyappa’s technical bid was rejected because he lacked the specified experience.

He challenged the rejection, relying on Government Orders dated 3 February 2024 and 21 August 2024, which relaxed past-experience requirements for certain reserved-category contractors in construction tenders.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, holding that the relaxation did not extend to forestry operations.

Kariyappa appealed.

Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 defines “construction works” to include specified building, road, bridge and other civil works; the Government Orders dated 3 February 2024 and 21 August 2024 relaxed experience requirements only for procurement of construction works.

The 25 November 2022 circular permitted the Forest Department to include special conditions of contract tailored to the work.

The tendering authority may prescribe technical eligibility criteria connected to the nature of the work, subject to judicial review for arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides or comparable illegality.

Under M. Basavanna v. State of Karnataka, forestry activities are not construction works for purposes of the relevant reservation policy.

Under Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Scope Sales Private Limited, an intra-court appellate bench should not interfere merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted where the Single Judge’s decision is demonstrably erroneous or perverse.

The Court found that the tender concerned plantation, seedling-raising and maintenance—not construction—and therefore fell outside the scope of the Government Orders’ experience relaxation.

The Department’s requirement of prior experience in similar forestry operations was directly related to the specialised nature of the work and was supported by the circular permitting work-specific special conditions.

Because Kariyappa admittedly lacked the stipulated experience, the rejection of his bid was not arbitrary or procedurally improper.

The Single Judge’s conclusion was a reasonable view, not one shown to be erroneous or perverse; the appellate court therefore found no basis to interfere.

Finding no perversity or other ground for appellate intervention, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.