Facts
The petitioner Association challenged an amended order dated 23 August 2024 directing the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (KRIDL) to carry out rural-road development works in H.D. Kote Constituency.
Source reference: p.4–5A short-term tender notification had been issued on 22 July 2024, and bidders—including members of the Association—had submitted bids.
Source reference: p.4–5The Association alleged that the works were entrusted to KRIDL following a letter from the constituency’s MLA.
Source reference: p.4–5KRIDL objected that the Association itself had not participated in the tender and therefore was not an aggrieved person.
Source reference: p.5The Association responded that one of its members had participated.
Source reference: p.5The Court also considered KRIDL’s submission that it was executing the works itself and that their value was within the statutory limit of ₹2 crore.
Source reference: p.7Issues
1. Whether the Association could maintain the petition when it had not itself participated in the tender, although one of its members had.
Source reference: p.5–62. Whether the procurement entity could entrust the works to KRIDL under Section 4(e-4) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, where KRIDL was to execute them itself and their value did not exceed ₹2 crore.
Source reference: p.6–7Law Applied
Section 4(e-4) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 permits a procurement entity to entrust construction works in rural and urban areas, valued at no more than ₹2 crore, to KRIDL, subject to KRIDL executing the works itself.
Source reference: p.6If KRIDL sub-lets the works, it must do so through tendering under the Act, with the reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons prescribed by the provisos to Section 4(e-4), read with Section 6.
Source reference: p.6The Court cited no precedent.
Source reference: p.6Reasoning
The Court accepted the objection to maintainability, reasoning that the Association was a separate legal entity and had not itself participated in the tender; the participation of a member did not make the Association a tender participant.
Source reference: p.5On the statutory issue, the Court read Section 4(e-4) as permitting the entrustment of works within the ₹2 crore limit to KRIDL, while requiring tendering and the specified reservation if the works were sub-let.
Source reference: p.6KRIDL submitted that it was executing the works itself and that their value was within the limit; on that basis, the Court found no fault with the entrustment.
Source reference: p.7Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the Association had not itself participated in the tender and that the entrustment to KRIDL was permissible under Section 4(e-4) on the basis that KRIDL would execute the works itself within the statutory value limit.
Any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Source reference: p.7Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Original Court PDF
H.D.KOTE TALUK SC/ST CONTRACTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (R)vsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
