Karnataka HC Upholds Sathya Construction’s Package 23 Tender Win, Finding Prior Work-Order Cancellation Alone Didn’t Prove Ineligibility

The petitioners challenged the tender evaluation and the appellate authority’s orders dated 4 and 5 March 2026 concerning Packages 5, 14 and 23 issued by Bangalore Solid Waste Management Limited.

They sought to set aside the appellate orders and the Tender Evaluation Committee’s proceedings, and to have the competing bidders’ eligibility and qualifications re-examined.

For Package 5, they challenged the successful consortium’s use of credentials and alleged overlapping consortium participation; for Package 14, they challenged A.L. Satish Kumar’s selection; and for Package 23, they alleged that Sathya Construction was ineligible, including under Clause 2.2.13.

Petitioner No. 2 died during the proceedings; his Package 14 challenge concerned a bid made in his individual capacity.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle that judicial review of tender decisions is limited: the Court does not sit in appeal over the tendering or appellate authority’s decision and will interfere only where a decision is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or contrary to the tender conditions.

Clause 2.2.13 of the tender conditions disqualified a bidder for failure to perform a contract in the preceding five years only where that failure was evidenced by a penalty imposed by an arbitral or judicial authority, a judicial pronouncement, or an arbitration award.

For Package 5, the petitioners did not produce material showing that credentials had been improperly fragmented or that the alleged common participation in consortiums violated the tender conditions; the additional contention about Sunil G. was distinct from the objection raised before the appellate authority and was also unsupported by evidence of a resulting breach.

The Package 14 challenge abated because it concerned only Petitioner No. 2’s individual bid and could not be continued by the remaining petitioners.

For Package 23, the appellate authority had assessed Sathya Construction’s qualification documents and the circumstances of its bids across packages; the petitioners did not establish that this assessment was contrary to the tender conditions.

The earlier work-order cancellation did not, on the material presented, satisfy Clause 2.2.13’s specified evidentiary requirements for disqualification.

The Court therefore found no demonstrated basis for intervention under Article 226.

Finding no ground for judicial interference, it dismissed the writ petition.

The dismissal was not to prevent the petitioners from participating in tenders already issued or subsequently issued by Respondent No. 3.