Karnataka HC Quashes Bengaluru Horticulture Tenders And Work Orders, Finding The Underlying Jobs Fall Outside The KTPP Act’s “Construction Works” Definition

The petitioners challenged tenders for tree-canopy management and monsoon plantation, as well as work-allocation orders and short-term tender notifications concerning horticulture and park-maintenance works in Bengaluru.

They contended that the works were not “Construction Works” under Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, and that the impugned orders and notifications were impermissible under Rule 27A of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000.

On 16 July 2026, the Court granted an interim stay after recording a prima facie view that the tenders were not construction contracts.

The Court considered Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, which defines “Construction Works,” and Rule 27A of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000.

It held that the works at issue— including maintenance of parks and related horticultural works—did not fall within the statutory definition of Construction Works or the relevant ambit of Rule 27A.

The Court examined the nature of the work contemplated by the tenders and concluded that it did not meet the definition of Construction Works in Section 2(a).

It further found that the challenged work orders and tender notifications, which concerned maintenance of parks and related works, could not be justified under Rule 27A.

Accordingly, the petitioners’ grounds for challenging the impugned measures were accepted.

It clarified that the respondents remained at liberty to issue fresh tender notifications in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.