Karnataka High Court
Forceone Sd Private Limited vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
WP No. 26719 of 2025
HC-KAR
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 26719 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN
FORCEONE SD PRIVATE LIMITED
606, KRISH GARDENS, 1-8-373, HUDA
OFFICE LANE CHIRAN FORT LANE,
BEGUMPETNA-SECUNDERABAD-T,
TELANGANA 560016
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAHIL SOOD., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MOHSIN KHAN PATHAN., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
GOVT OF KARNATAKA,
KAVERI BHAWAN, KG ROAD,
Digitally signed
KG ROAD, BENGALURU 560009
by SHWETHA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH 2. KERC,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
NO 16, C-1, MILLERS TANK BUND RD,
BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560052
THROUGH THE REGISTRAR
3. KSLDC
KARNATAKA STATE LOAD DISPATCH CENTRE,
GOVT OF KARNATAKA,
27/1, RACE COURSE RD, MADHAVA NAGAR,
GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560009
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
WP No. 26719 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. GOVT OF KARNATAKA
ENERGY DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO 236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR STREET,
BANGALORE 560001
THROUGH THE ENERGY CHIEF SECRETARY
5. MINISTRY OF POWER
GOVT OF INDIA,
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110001
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. D.J. RAKSHITHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. K.P. YASHODHA., AGA FOR R4;
SRI. VENKATANARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R5; V/O DATED 03.09.2025, NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS STANDS DEFFERED SUBJECT TO FURTHER ORDERS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER FOR CALLING FOR RECORDS ABOUT THE INVITATION TO TENDER DATED 11.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 ANNX-B BEARING NO. KPTCL/CGM (TECH) /BESS/25-26/002 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ -3- NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR CAV ORDER
1. Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Writ or certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction or order for calling for records about the invitation to tender dated 11.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-B), bearing No. KPTCL/CGM (TECH) /BESS/25-26/002.
ii. Writ, Order or any other direction or order declaring the bid submitted by the successful bidder (L1) as non-complaint and invalid bid.
iii. Writ of certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction or order declaring the action dated 19.08.2025, wherein the petitioners bid was decided as non- responsive, as illegal, and without any basis (Annexure-D) iv. Writ of certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction or order to qualify our Bid and direct the KPTCL rehold the reverse auction process in an open and transparent manner with sufficient notice.
v. Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts of the case.
vi. Grant the costs of these proceedings.
2. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited [KPTCL]- Respondent No.1 invited proposal to set up a grid-connected standalone Battery Energy Storage System, for which a Battery Energy Storage System Agreement would be entered into by the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR State, the bidders being selected through a reverse auction to provide such energy storage facilities to HESCOMs. The Petitioner participated in respect of the tender notification. It being a single-stage bidding process with two envelopes containing technical and financial bids. The tender was issued on 11.06.2025, a pre-bid meeting was held on 18.06.2025, the last date for bid submission was 3.07.2025, and the process was to be completed by 8.07.2025. The Petitioner claims to have submitted the requisite bid documents vide letter dated 8.07.2025 and informed respondent No.1 that an online application had been successfully submitted through the ETS portal, which was acknowledged on 9.07.2025. Petitioner claims that no deficiencies were pointed out in respect of the documents submitted, and, as such, was shocked to learn on 19.08.2025, upon logging on to the portal, that the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR Petitioner's bid at tender stage-1 was declared non- responsive.
3. The reverse bid auction was held on 19.08.2025 at 5 pm. The Petitioner, on 20.08.2025, came to know that a company by the name PROSTARM Infosystem had won the current bid, and it is in that background that the Petitioner has approached this Court on 29.08.2025 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Respondent No.1 is the tender issuing authority viz., KPTCL, respondent No.2 is the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission [KERC], Respondent No.3 is the Karnataka State Load Dispatch Centre, Respondent No.4 is the Government of Karnataka, Energy Department and Respondent No.5 is the Ministry of Power.
5. Sri.Sahil Sood Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that, 5.1. No reasons have been communicated either through the tender portal or through any email -6- NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR provided by the Petitioner at the time of rejection, and it is for that reason that the rejection not having been communicated, the Petitioner could not take the necessary steps. The rejection without information to the Petitioner is bad in law and is required to be set aside.
5.2. His submission is that there is a clear violation of natural justice and infirmity in the decision- making process, therefore rendering the writ petition maintainable.
5.3. The Petitioner having submitted all the bid documents in full compliance, this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, and in that regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa1 more particularly para 22 1 (2007) 14 SCC 517 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully"
and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached";
(ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.
5.4. By relying on Jagdish Mandal's case, his submission is that a writ court can exercise jurisdiction where the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafide or intended to favour someone. In the present matter, the process is malafide since the Petitioner was not informed and was not given an opportunity to correct the defects. His -9- NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR further submission is that the process has been adopted to favour the successful bidder by contending that the bidder has bid 2.54 lakhs per Megawatt which is way above the normal rates, and as such, other bidders like the Petitioner have been eliminated. 5.5. His submission for the very same reason is that the decision of the tender issuing authority is completely arbitrary and irrational. His submission is also that a large amount has been bid in the reverse auction, which is more than the normal amounts. Public interest would be adversely affected, since these amounts would have to be paid from the public exchequer.
5.6. His submission is that the alternative efficacious remedy in terms of appeal under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 [KTPP Act' for short] would not be an
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR efficacious remedy. In that regard, he relies upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. Chinnappa Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka 2, more particularly para 16 and the operative portion thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
16. Submissions are made by the learned senior Counsel that this Court should not interfere with the process of tender unless it is found to be arbitrary and seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MICHIGAN RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1. In the said judgment the Apex Court has held as follows:
"...23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is 2 WP No.28866 of 2023 DD 23.01.2024
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.
24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"?
and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected? If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article
226."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that the process of tender must be fair and non-arbitrary which is the heartbeat of fair play. If it is not, it would become amenable to judicial review. The Apex Court also holds that certain preconditions or qualifications for tender have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and resources to successfully execute the work and if it is not, they should be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The action of the 2nd respondent is contrary to the Rules and the Government Order holding the field. Taking away of working experience of a contractor would put the project in jeopardy. It is therefore, the entire process from the stage of issuance of request for proposal should be redone by the 2nd respondent. 5.7. By relying on Chinnappa Reddy's case, his submission is that the process of tender must be fair and non-arbitrary. The Petitioner, having complied with all the preconditions and qualifications, having the capacity and resources to successfully execute the work, his
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
WP No. 26719 of 2025
HC-KAR
bid ought to have been taken into
consideration.
5.8. He also relies upon another decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in Aditi vs. North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation3 more particularly para 4 thereof which is reproduced here under for easy reference:
4. The argument of respondent No.1 cannot be accepted because admittedly there has been no mistake on part of the Petitioner. He is qualified to participate in the tender and his bid is the highest and the bid is above the minimum reserve price fixed by respondent No.1. It is not the case of the respondent No.1 that it is availing the services of the Petitioner for some service for which it has to pay the consideration and it does not have the necessary financial resource to be eligible to take shelter under the said ground.
Fixing minimum reserve price is the prerogative of the respondent No.1. Nothing prevented respondent No.1 from fixing a higher amount as the minimum reserve price. Having fixed the minimum price at Rs.2,18,261/- per month as the licence fee, respondent No.1 is bound to lease the premises for a bid higher than the said amount. Thus, cancellation of the tender under the circumstance has to be held illegal.
3 WP 106551 of 2023 DD 9.11.2023
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 5.9. By relying on Aditi's case, his submission is that there is no mistake on part of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is qualified to participate in the tender and as such, the respondent ought to have permitted the Petitioner to participate.
5.10. He relies on the decision of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Millipore India Private Ltd -v- Government of India and others4, more particularly para 2, 8, 17, 18 and 27 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
2. The Petitioner in this case is calling in question the order at Annexure 'L' dated 15-10-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent. The facts leading to this petition are as under:
The Petitioner a Registered Company is carrying on its activities in the manufacture of high quality Water Purification System. It has Head Office at Bangalore. Millipore SAS BP 307 78054, Saint Quentin Yveliens Cedex, France, are having factories at France and United States of America and they are Joint Venture Partners in the petitioner-Company. The Petitioner has filed Annexure 'A' series Certificates issued by the 4 (2002) SCC online, Karnataka 72
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR Pollution Control Boards. The Petitioner has also installed Water Purification Systems in institutions such as Indian Institute of Science, National Institute of Oceanography, Semi Biotech Research Laboratory, National Institute of Ocean Technology, School of Bio- Technology etc. The Petitioner has filed Certificates Annexure 'B' series in this regard.
8. After hearing the Counsel two issues emerge for my consideration;
(1) Whether the Petitioner can maintain a petition in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
2) Whether Annexure 'L' requires my interference.
17. In the light of the decisions, what is clear to me is that to understand the cause of action, the Court has to look into the material facts available on record. The material at Annexure 'C' would reveal that Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India through RITES Ltd. has invited sealed bids from eligible bidders for supply of equipment listed below:
Schedule Brief Description Qty. in Nos.
No.
I Water Purification System 27
II COD auto Digestion Reactor 30
and Spectro Photometer
III Kjeldan Apparatus 31
18. Annexure 'L' provides for the details in the matter.
It is seen from the schedule of requirements that these equipments are also meant for the State of Karnataka. It is evident from the schedule of requirement at page 95. Moreover, in terms of Section
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 4 of the Contract Act, the place of contract is also a relevant matter. Part of the Contract is also to be performed in the State of Karnataka. In the light of these bundle of facts and in the light of a clear pronouncement of law, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no cause of action at all that has arisen in this Court. The Supreme Court in the above referred cases has ruled that the averments in the petition and the material facts would determine the nature of cause of action. Therefore, in the light of the performance of the Contract in part in Karnataka and in the light of some equipments being made available to the State of Karnataka, a part of the cause of action has occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the preliminary objection in the light of the material facts requires rejection and I do so in the case on hand. The strong reliance of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994 AIR SCW 3287) is to be understood in the light of the facts emerging from the pleadings of the case. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Uptal Kumar Basu case there was no cause of action either in part or in whole that arose in the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. It was in those circumstances, the Court ruled that the Calcutta High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. That is not the case in the case on hand. A part of cause of action has occurred in this State and therefore, it cannot be said that this Court lacks absolute jurisdiction warranting rejection on the ground of want of jurisdiction by this Court. On facts, this Court holds that part of cause of action has occurred and that the petition is maintainable in this Court.
27. In the case on hand, the relevant facts in the prescribed Price Schedule in terms of the prescribed form have not been taken into consideration. On the other hand, Annexure I a document, which is not forming part of the bidding document, has been relied upon as a material deviation for rejecting the case of
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR the Petitioner. This in my view is nothing but an arbitrary decision in terms of the Apex Court Judgment. Therefore, Annexure 'L' requires to be set aside on the peculiar facts of this case and in the light of the discussion on the subject in this order. It is unnecessary for me to go into as to whether there is material deviation at all in the light of the various terms read with Annexure I to the Price Schedule. That question is left open.
5.11. By relying on Millipore India Private Ltd case, his submission is that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the power conferred under Article 226 can be exercised by the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which the cause of action has arisen. In the present case, the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court ought to exercise jurisdiction. 5.12. He relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited -v- SICAL Logistics Limited and others5, more particularly 11, 12, and 13 5 ILR 2007 Karnataka 226
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. We cannot but agree with the Learned Single Judge's disapproval of the rejection of the second respondent-SICAL's bid based on the decision of the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee has no place in the decision-making process, as per the provisions of the Transparency Act and Rules. The tender evaluation has to be made only by the Tender Inviting Authority, the Tender Scrutiny Committee and finally by the Tender Accepting Authority.
Therefore, we are in total agreement with the Learned Single Judge's order quashing the proceedings of the Technical Committee. We fully appreciate the Learned Single Judge's anxiety that the State and its instrumentalities should Act in a fair manner that they should not resort to pick and choose methods, that they do not either unduly favour any tenderer and unreasonably eliminate any tenderer from the field of competition.
12. However, the Learned Single Judge's direction for re-notification, calling for fresh tenders is not wan- anted. The matter ought to have remanded to the authorities with a direction to redo the things from the stage at which the flaw was noticed. In the instant cases admittedly, the Tender Inviting Authority has not prepared a list of qualified tenderers, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 28(4) of the Transparency Rules. On the other hand, the extra legal Technical Committee resolves to open the second cover of the appellant-South India Corporation Limited and the third respondent- Karamchand and to return the price-bid of the second respondent-SICAL. The very constitution of this Technical Committee has no legal basis. Therefore, its decisions cannot be acted upon. We fully affirm
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR the order of the Learned Single Judge in so far as it pertains to the constitution and the findings of the Technical Committee.
13. We are of the considered view that the process has to be resumed from the stage at which the flaw is noticed. The first flaw we noticed at the outset is not drawing up the list of qualified tenderers, as per Rule 28 of the Transparency Rules. In that view of the matter we feel it proper to set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge directing re-notification of the tender and direct the Tender Inviting Authority of the appellant-KPCL to prepare the list of qualified tenderers first and thereafter the Tender Scrutiny Committee and the Tender Accepting Authority of the appellant-KPCL shall do the evaluation and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. We are setting aside that part of the Learned Single Judge's order, which directs re-notification. 5.13. By relying on the SICAL Logistics case, his submission is that a coordinate bench of this Court has exercised jurisdiction to set aside a tender and remanded the matter to consider it from the stage it was left, and as such, this Court could also exercise jurisdiction. 5.14. Though certain other judgments have been produced, he does not refer to or rely upon those judgments.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 5.15. His submission is that the rejection of the tender of the Petitioner has been made on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that there is no compliance with GST, and secondly, on the ground that the necessary documents have not been furnished. Insofar as GST is concerned, his submission is that the requirement to furnish the GST certificate and registration details is only for the purpose of processing the payments which would arise after the awardal of the tender and not before. The Petitioner, having applied for registration of GST, had categorically informed the tender issuing authority that the certificate would be furnished once the registration was complete. Thereafter, the Petitioner, having obtained the GST registration, has complied with the requirements.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 5.16. On enquiry as to whether the registration was obtained before the evaluation of the bid document, he submits that the said registration certificate was obtained after the evaluation, but that the Petitioner had informed the respondents about the application having been filed by the Petitioner. The requirement of GST registration being only for the purpose of payment and invoicing is a post-award obligation and as such, a non-essential obligation and in this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Poddar Steel Corporation -v- Ganesh Engineering Works and Others6, more particularly para 6, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
6. It is true that in submitting its tender accompanied by a cheque of the Union Bank of India and not of the State Bank clause 6 of the tender notice was not 6 (1991)3 SCC 273
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR obeyed literally, but the question is as to whether the said non-compliance deprived the Diesel Locomotive Works of the authority to accept the bid. As a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories -- those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. This aspect was examined by this Court in C.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 488] a case dealing with tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation as the present one, the observations in the judgment support our view. The High Court has, in the impugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] but has failed to appreciate that the reported case belonged to the first category where the strict compliance of the condition could be insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice which was an essential condition of eligibility, bestowed a favour on one of the bidders, which amounted to illegal discrimination. The judgment indicates that the Court closely examined the nature of the condition which had been relaxed and its impact before answering the question whether it could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the tender in question. This part of the judgment demonstrates the difference between the two
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR categories of the conditions discussed above. However it remains to be seen as to which of the two clauses, the present case belongs. 5.17. By relying on Poddar Steel Corporation case, his submission is that in any contract/tender, the essential condition of eligibility and other conditions which are merely ancillary or subsidiary, as per his submission, in respect of the present tender, the GSTN registration is an ancillary requirement and as such, cannot be a ground for rejection of the tender. 5.18. He vehemently submits that the BSPA being for a 12-year period with 150 MW capacity, the reverse bid now offered to a successful tenderer is Rs.. 2.54 lakh per MW which amounts to Rs.38.1 crores, while he submits that competitive rate would be Rs.1.775 lakhs per MW, amounting to Rs.26.625 lakhs, 22 crores, thereby a loss being caused to the exchequer of more than Rs.12crores. On enquiry as to
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR whether this is the bid that the Petitioner has submitted, his submission is that since the bid of the Petitioner has been rejected at the technical stage, it has not gone up to the financial bid. Again, on enquiry as to whether the Petitioner would submit a bid lesser than Rs . 1.775 lakhs if so permitted, he does not make any submission.
5.19. As regards the rejection of the technical bid of the Petitioner on the ground of inadequate documents, he submits that all the documents have been provided.
5.20. The petitioner company was originally incorporated as Malampati Power Private Limited in the year 2013, and thereafter, the name of the company came to be changed to the name of the Petitioner with effect from 6- 03-2021. At the time of incorporation of the company, the shareholders were M. Sudharani,
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR who held 4750 equity shares and one Jhansi Lakshmi Balla, held 450 equity shares. Thereafter, the shareholding pattern was revised in terms of certification, which has been issued by the Chartered Accountant. The revised shareholding of the petitioner company is M/s PSGG Tech Pvt. Ltd., holding 74% and Mrs Akshay Karthikeyan and Associates LLP, holding 26% as per the certification issued on 24th June 2025. Thus, he submits that it is the shareholding of PSGG and Akshay that were required to be considered by the respondents and not the shareholding of Sudharani and Lakshmibala.
5.21. By referring to the rejection made by Respondent No. 1, he submits that Respondent No. 1 has indicated that the qualification based on the financial capability of the affiliates, namely Leap India Food and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR and Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd., was sought to be taken into consideration. Leap India and Investors Clinic are not the affiliates of the Petitioner and as such, there could not have been a demand made by the respondents to furnish the financial details of Leap India and Investors Clinic. Respondents ought to have taken into consideration the financial details of PSGG and Akshay Karthikeyan, as well as their parent companies.
5.22. His submission is that though the Petitioner had made a payment of Rs.15 lakhs for the purpose of studying the documents submitted by the Petitioner, a proper study has not been made by the respondents. The respondents have erred in understanding the shareholding pattern. Leap India is not an affiliate of the petitioner company, but an affiliate of an affiliate of the petitioner company. Leap India
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR does not have a shareholding of more than 50% in the petitioner company, and therefore, the documents relating to Leap India could not have been called for, and there was no requirement for the Petitioner to furnish those documents. Investors Clinic is a shareholder in PSGG Tech Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, it is again not an affiliate of the Petitioner, and for the same reason, the respondents could not have insisted on the financial details of Investor Clinic.
5.23. The actions on the part of the respondents are contrary to clauses 37.1, 37.2 and 37.3; therefore, the actions on the part of the respondents are bad in law. His submission is also that the respondents have rejected the Petitioner's bid on account of a lack of clarity regarding the bidder's affiliates and not for violation of the tender conditions. In such
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR circumstances, the respondents ought to have sought clarity or clarification, which has not been sought for and in this regard, he relies upon the decision in Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication (P) Ltd. v. M.P. Power Generating Co. Ltd.,7, more particularly, para 19(ii) and (iii), 20 and 25 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
19. We are unable to accept such arguments for the following reasons:--
(ii) It is nobody's case that the 1st respondent had doubted the authenticity of the certificate but had disqualified the appellant on the ground that Clause 5(D) mandated furnishing of the JV agreement alone and nothing else to prove proportionate share in a previous JV in order to use such experience.
(iii) Conditions in a NIT must be clear and unambiguous. In the event the tendering authority insisted on furnishing of the JV agreement alone and no other document as proof of the proportionate share of the bidder to avail previous JV experience as prior qualification, it should have been spelt out clearly in the NIT. Having not done so, the 1st respondent cannot thrust the responsibility on the appellant to seek clarification and submit such document. As Clause 5(D) does not require submission of JV agreement itself to 7 (2025) SCC online, SC 1942
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR establish proportionate share in the JV whose past- experience the bidder is seeking to use, non- submission of such JV cannot be a ground to disqualify the bidder for submission of incomplete documents in terms of Clause 8.1 of NIT. Admittedly, the appellant had submitted the work execution certificate, as required under clause 5(D), which also unequivocally sets out its proportionate share in the JV agreement whose prior experience it had relied on.
20. In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold the 1st respondent acted contrary to the terms of the NIT and unfairly rejected the appellant's bid for non- production of JV agreement although Clause 5(D) did not prescribe production of such agreement as mandatory to rely on past-experience of such consortium in which the bidder had a defined proportionate share.
25. For these reasons, we remand the matter for a fresh consideration whether appellant had requisite spare washing capacity as per Clause 5(B) of the NIT and the validity of the work order in favour of the 2nd respondent in light of such decision. The High Court shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of communication of this order.
5.24. Relying on Maha Mineral Mining's case, his submission is that the respondents have acted unfairly, have not sought clarification, and as such, the awardal of tender has to be set aside, and the matter remanded. He again reiterates
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR that the Petitioner has complied with all the requirements. The Petitioner's annual turnover is Rs . 176.07 crores, the Annual turnover of Leap India is 155.09 crores, the Annual turnover of Investors Clinic is 179.51 crores, and therefore, the minimum requirements being satisfied, the Petitioner's bid ought not to have been rejected.
5.25. Lastly, he submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court, having granted interim relief, having thought it fit that there is a case made out by the Petitioner, and as such, this Court ought not to, at this stage, consider the maintainability of the writ petition and relegate the Petitioner to an alternate remedy. That ought to have been done when the matter had been taken up for consideration of the interim relief.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that, 6.1. The writ petition has been initiated by an unsuccessful bidder to thwart the tender process. There being four participants, it is only the Petitioner who was declared non-responsive due to multiple essential non-compliances. The Petitioner, claiming that he has complied with the tender conditions, would indicate that none of the tender conditions have been challenged, and as such, the present petition would have to be adjudicated on the basis of the compliance made by the Petitioner.
6.2. The Petitioner had submitted the bid on 8.07.2025, on the date of closure. The technical bids were opened on 10.07.2025 and evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Committee. The Petitioner was declared non-responsive for violation of clause 14, 37.1, 37.2, 37.3, which
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR was uploaded on the official tender portal on 19.07.2025 and communicated to the petitioners vide the email ID, which is also found mentioned in the portal.
6.3. He submits that the Petitioner, who claims to have been in business since 2013, does not even have a GSTIN certificate or GSTIN registration for the last 12 years, which indicates that the Petitioner company is a shell company and has not carried out any business. The application for registration of GST IN was made only after submission of the bid. According to him, GST registration is an essential condition.
6.4. Insofar as the financial eligibility is concerned, he submits that Clause 37.1, 37.2 and 37.3 are the relevant provisions and it is for the bidder to qualify and comply with those requirements. He refers to the tender documents submitted
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR along with the written submission, more particularly, letter dated 2.07.2025, being format 7.6-format for financial requirement, recorded at page 123, wherein the Petitioner has himself stated that the name of the bidding company is the Petitioner and the name of the affiliates whose net worth is to be considered has been shown to be Leap India Food and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd. It is on that basis he submits that the financial documents of these two companies were required to be furnished. Since they were not so furnished, the technical bid of the Petitioner was held to be unresponsive, as they had not been rectified despite the defects having been uploaded on the portal and communicated to the Petitioner by email. 6.5. His submission is that the respondents have no ill will towards the Petitioner. If the Petitioner
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR had complied with all the requirements, the respondents would not have rejected the technical bid which had been submitted. As per the records that have been submitted, the net worth of the petitioner company is less than five crores. There is a contradiction in the shareholding records inasmuch as when the memorandum of association, which has been furnished, indicates that the shareholding is that of Mrs Sudarani and Mrs Jansi Lakshmi Balla, the certificate issued by the Company Secretary indicates the shareholders are PSGG Technologies and Akshay Karthikeyan Associates. There are no details which have been furnished as regards how PSGG or Akshay Karthikeyan Associates acquired shares and no documents have been furnished in relation thereto.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 6.6. In terms of clause (44.2), an affiliate shall mean a company that directly or indirectly controls or is controlled by or is under a common control with the company developing a project or a member in a consortium developing the project. Thus, he submits that the word 'controls', would mean the companies in which the Petitioner has a substantial shareholding, 'is controlled by' would mean companies that have substantial shareholding in the Petitioner. The shareholding in the Petitioner, even according to the Petitioner is that of PSGG holding 74% and Akshay Karthikeyan holding 26%, there are no details of any company in which the Petitioner holds substantial shareholding which has been provided and insofar as shareholders of the Petitioner, Akshay Karthikeyan holding 20%, not controlling the Petitioner, PSGG holding
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 75%, it is only PSGG's track record which can be considered. Even then, the petitioners having indicated that LEAP India and Investor Clinics' financial details have to be considered, those details have not been furnished, and as such, no evaluation could be made in respect thereto.
6.7. He submits that any doubt or clarification that the Petitioner wanted, ought to have been sought for in the pre-bid meeting and not after submitting the bid and in this regard, he relies upon the decision in Jagdish Mandal's case, more particularly para 22 thereof, which is extracted hereinabove, but, however, submits that if the said tests were applied and the answer was in the negative, this Court ought not to intercede in the matter.
6.8. Insofar as reverse auction and the allegation that a high price has been quoted, he has filed
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR a memo indicating the tenders by way of reverse auction, which have occurred from January 2025 to June 2025 in various southern states, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
The Details of the rates (Rs/MW/Month) discovered in tender floated by other utilities are as follows as available in website of MERCOM:
State Entity Total Month of Name of Capacity Rates capacity submisssion the Bidder (MW/MWh) Discovered of Bid/e- in Tender reverse in auction (Rs/MW/M onth) Kerala KSEB 250 JAN -2025 M/s JSW 250 4,41,000 MW/ ENERGY MW/500 500 MWh MWh Telengana TGGENCO 250 FEB- 2025 M/S 50 MW/ 2,40,347 MW/ Bondada 100 MWh 500 Engineering MWh M/s Oriana 50 MW/ 2,45,152 Power 100 MWh M/s Pace 125 MW/ 2,45,153 Digitek 250 MWh Tamilnadu TNGECL 500 JUNE 2025 M/S 200 MW/ 2,46,000 MW/ Bondada 400 MWh 1000M Engineering Wh M/s Oriana 50 MW/ 2,48,000 Power 100 MWh M/s NLC 250 MW/ 2,48,000 India 500 MWh Renewable s Karnataka KPTCL 350 April 2025 M/S Sarala 50 MW/ 2,45,000 (Previous MW/70 Project 100 MWh awarded) 0 M Wh Works Pvt.
Ltd.
Chitradurga
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395
WP No. 26719 of 2025
HC-KAR
M/s Oriana 50 MW/ 2,49,900
Power 100 MWh
Limited,
Noida,
Uttar
Pradesh
M/s Pace 250 MW/ 2,49,900
Digitek 500 MWh
Limited,
6.9. H Bengaluru
is submission is that the present reverse
tender, being for Rs.2,54,000/- is in pari materia with the other tenders, though of course it is a little higher than the others. His submission is that though the Petitioner has indicated that the appropriate bid would have to be Rs.1,77,000/-, the Petitioner has not come forward to offer such a price and as such, said submission is only to create confusion and nothing else. The State being required to implement the project at the earliest, has gone ahead with such implementation and no fault can be found in relation thereto. 6.10. Lastly, he submits that there is a limited scope of judicial review. The Petitioner has an
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR alternative remedy under section 16 of the KTTP Act and it is for that reason that the Petitioner would have to approach the appellate authority which has been created for such purpose and in that regard, he relies on NEC Technologies India (P) Ltd., vs. Shivamogga Smart City Ltd.,8 more particularly para 18 and 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the Petitioner to the decisions in the case of Larsen and Tourbo Limited, West Bengal Electricity Board, Monarch Infrastructure Limited, supra. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions do not apply to the fact situation of the case in view of the obtaining factual matrix which has been stated in the preceding paragraphs. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 which reads as under:
"(1) Any tenderer aggrieved by an order passed by the Tender Accepting Authority other than the Government. under Section 13 may appeal to the prescribed authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order:
Provided that the prescribed authority may, in its discretion allow further time not exceeding thirty 8 (2019) SCC Online Karnataka 4343
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR days for preferring any such appeal, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time.
(2) The prescribed authority may after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties pass such order thereon as it deems fit and such order shall be final.
(3) The prescribed authority shall as far as possible dispose of the appeal within thirty days from the date of filing thereof."
19. On this ground also, no interference is called for as the Petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against an order passed by the tender accepting authority under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. In view of preceding analysis, no case for interference in exercise of powers of judicial review-under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. However, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy which is available to him under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. Needless to state that in case such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal without being influenced by any of the observations contained in this order.
6.11. By relying on NEC Technologies' case, he submits that the exercise of powers under Article 226 for judicial review is to be exercised in limited circumstances. The parties who are
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR aggrieved ought to be relegated to the appeal remedy provided under the statute. 6.12. Heard Sri.Sahil sood, learned Counsel for Sri.Mohsin Khan Pathan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty for Smt.D.J.Rakshitha, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, Smt.K.P.Yashoda, learned AGA for respondent No.4, Sri.Venkatanarayana, learned Counsel for respondent No.5. Perused papers.
7. The points that would arise for determination are:
1. Whether the Petitioner has made out any case which would come within the purview of the exceptions carved out in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517]?
2. Whether the Petitioner has been communicated with the defects, thereby complying with the principle of natural justice?
3. In the present case, whether the rejection of the tender bid of the Petitioner on account of the evaluation made is proper and correct?
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. What order?
8. I answer the above points as follows:
9. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the Petitioner has made out any case falling within the exceptions carved out in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517]? 9.1. Judicial review in matters relating to tenders and award of public contracts stand authoritatively delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa. Judicial review in such matters is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and does not extend to evaluating the comparative merits of bids or substituting administrative or technical discretion with judicial opinion. 9.2. The exceptions carved out in Jagdish Mandal operate at a narrow and high threshold. A petitioner must establish either mala fides or
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR such manifest arbitrariness or irrationality that no reasonable authority acting in accordance with law could have arrived at the impugned decision, coupled with demonstrable prejudice to public interest.
9.3. From the material placed on record, it is undisputed that as on the date of submission of the bid, the Petitioner did not possess a valid GST registration. The application for GST registration was admittedly made only after submission of the bid.
9.4. The tender conditions required bidders to furnish GST registration details as part of the bid documentation. Whether such a requirement constitutes an essential eligibility condition or a post-award compliance obligation is governed by the tender terms themselves. 9.5. The tendering authority treated the absence of GST registration at the bid stage as a material
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR non-compliance. I do not find any perversity or irrationality in the authority adopting such an interpretation, particularly when the tender conditions themselves have not been challenged as arbitrary, vague, or ambiguous. 9.6. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on Poddar Steel Corporation's case does not advance its case. The said decision itself recognises that essential eligibility conditions must be strictly complied with, and that the determination of whether a condition is essential or ancillary lies primarily within the domain of the tendering authority.
9.7. The record further discloses that the Petitioner, in its bid documents, identified certain entities as its "affiliates" for the purpose of satisfying financial eligibility criteria under Clauses 37.1 to 37.3 of the tender document.
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 9.8. Having so identified such entities as affiliates, the Petitioner was required to furnish their corresponding financial documents to enable evaluation of net worth and turnover in accordance with the tender conditions. 9.9. It is an admitted position that the requisite financial documents pertaining to the identified affiliates were not furnished along with the bid. 9.10. The Petitioner's subsequent contention that such entities were not, in fact, affiliates within the meaning of the tender conditions involves questions of factual appreciation and interpretation, which fall squarely within the domain of the tendering authority and, where permissible, the statutory appellate authority. 9.11. On the face of the record, the decision of the tendering authority to evaluate the bid on the basis of the Petitioner's own disclosures cannot
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR be characterised as arbitrary, irrational, or perverse.
9.12. The technical evaluation resulted in the Petitioner being declared non-responsive on multiple grounds, including the absence of GST registration and failure to satisfy financial eligibility criteria based on affiliate disclosures. 9.13. The evaluation was undertaken with reference to specific clauses of the tender document. There is no material to indicate that the eligibility criteria were altered, relaxed, or applied selectively.
9.14. The Petitioner does not challenge the validity or clarity of the eligibility conditions themselves, but disputes the manner of their application. Such a dispute, by its very nature, does not attract the limited exceptions carved out in Jagdish Mandal's case.
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 9.15. The Petitioner has contended that the tariff discovered in the reverse auction is excessive and detrimental to public interest. 9.16. The material on record indicates that the reverse auction was conducted strictly in accordance with the tender framework and that the price discovered was a product of competitive bidding.
9.17. The Petitioner admittedly did not participate in the financial bid stage, having been declared technically non-responsive. In such circumstances, its assertion as to what constitutes a competitive or appropriate tariff remains speculative.
9.18. Price discovery through a reverse auction is a function of market response, technical parameters, and risk allocation. Absent demonstrable mala fides or perversity, courts
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR are neither equipped nor entitled to determine whether a particular tariff is "high" or "low". 9.19. The factual findings recorded above clearly demonstrate that the rejection of the Petitioner's bid was founded on identifiable non- compliances assessed strictly with reference to the tender conditions and the Petitioner's own disclosures.
9.20. None of the grounds urged disclose mala fides, favouritism, or such manifest arbitrariness or irrationality as would warrant judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9.21. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the Petitioner has not made out any case falling within the exceptions carved out in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517].
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the Petitioner was communicated the defects, thereby complying with the principles of natural justice?
10.1. Having regard to the factual findings recorded under Point No.1, particularly concerning the absence of GST registration at the bid stage and the non-furnishing of financial documents relating to the affiliates identified by the Petitioner, it becomes necessary to examine whether the decision-making process suffered from any infirmity on account of breach of natural justice.
10.2. It is well settled that the principles of natural justice do not apply to tender matters with the same rigour as they do in adjudicatory or penal proceedings. Competitive tendering is a commercial process governed primarily by the tender conditions, the need for certainty, equal
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR treatment of bidders, and strict adherence to timelines.
10.3. Unless the tender document expressly contemplates a post-bid clarification rectification stage, the tendering authority is under no obligation to afford an opportunity to cure essential or material defects after submission of bids. Any such latitude, if extended selectively or otherwise, would itself give rise to allegations of arbitrariness. 10.4. In the present case, the record discloses that the Petitioner was informed of the rejection of its bid and the grounds therefor through the tender portal and registered electronic communication. The communication specifically indicated the clauses under which the bid was treated as non-responsive.
10.5. Communication of reasons in the manner contemplated under the tender framework
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR satisfies the requirement of procedural fairness applicable to tender processes. Natural justice in this context does not mandate a personal hearing, pre-decisional notice, or iterative correspondence with an individual bidder. 10.6. The Petitioner's contention that an opportunity ought to have been afforded to clarify or supplement documents is intrinsically linked to the merits of the evaluation itself and not to the legality of the decision-making process. 10.7. Accordingly, I find no violation of the principles of natural justice either in the communication of defects or in the manner in which the Petitioner's bid was rejected.
10.8. I answer Point No.2 by holding that the Petitioner was duly communicated the defects, thereby complying with the principles of natural justice.
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's tender bid on account of the evaluation made is proper and correct? 11.1. While answering Point No.1, I have examined the factual basis on which the Petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive, namely, the absence of GST registration at the bid stage and the failure to furnish financial documents relating to the affiliates identified by the Petitioner itself.
11.2. The question under this point squarely concerns the correctness of the evaluation and the interpretation of eligibility conditions, including whether certain requirements ought to have been treated as essential or ancillary and whether the Petitioner's explanations regarding affiliates ought to have been accepted. 11.3. It is trite that a writ court does not sit in appeal over tender evaluations. Re-assessment of technical or financial compliance, or substitution
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR of the Court's opinion for that of the tendering authority, lies outside the permissible scope of judicial review.
11.4. The Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 provides a dedicated statutory appellate mechanism under Section 16, which is expressly empowered to examine the legality and correctness of tender decisions, including issues relating to eligibility, evaluation, and interpretation of tender conditions.
11.5. Notwithstanding the availability of such an efficacious alternative remedy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner insisted that all issues be decided by this Court on the ground that interim relief had been granted earlier and that, at the stage of granting such relief, the Petitioner had not been relegated to the statutory remedy. It si for that reason that all
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are answered.
11.6. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the decision in Sri Chinnappa Reddy's case is misplaced and inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The Petitioner has failed to comply with essential tender requirements, inasmuch as the GST registration was not furnished and the financial statements of the associate companies identified by the Petitioner were also not submitted. Though it is now contended that the entities earlier identified as associate companies are not associates but merely shareholders of a shareholder of the Petitioner, it is evident that the Petitioner itself had consciously chosen and disclosed those entities as its associates. Having done so, it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to furnish the requisite details and financials of such
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR entities, which admittedly has not been done. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own omissions and defaults.
11.7. The decision in Aditi's case is also inapplicable to the present matter, as the disqualification herein is directly attributable to the Petitioner's own failure to submit the mandatory documents as required under the tender conditions. 11.8. The decision in Millipore India Private Ltd.'s case relates only to the scope of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the circumstances in which such power may be exercised. There is no issue concerning jurisdiction in the present matter, and consequently, the said decision has no application.
11.9. The reliance placed on SICAL Logistics Ltd.'s case is equally misconceived. That was a case
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR involving an extraordinary deviation from the prescribed tender process, where the technical committee assumed the role of the tender inviting, scrutiny, and accepting authorities, rendering the decision contrary to the established procedure and the tender documentation itself. It was in those exceptional circumstances that interference was warranted. No such extraordinary situation has been demonstrated by the Petitioner in the present case.
11.10. Despite being specifically called upon to state whether the Petitioner was willing to stand by its submission that the competitive rate was ₹1.775 lakhs per megawatt, learned Counsel for the Petitioner refrained from making any commitment. This clearly indicates that such submission was made only with a view to try and prejudice this Court and for no other bona
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR fide purpose. Acceptance of such a submission would only derail and prolong the tender process, which would not be in the interest of the State or the tender issuing authority. 11.11. The explanations offered regarding transfer of shares and change in shareholding, to contend that only PSGG and Akshay's financials ought to be considered, are of no avail when the Petitioner itself had expressly selected and nominated Leap India Food and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd. as its associates. Any attempt to alter this position during the course of arguments, or even before the tender issuing authority, is clearly subsequent to the submission of the tender documents and cannot enure to the benefit of the Petitioner. The Petitioner must be held accountable to the declarations and
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR documentation submitted along with the tender and cannot be permitted to resile therefrom. 11.12. Considerable emphasis has been placed on the payment of ₹15 lakhs by the Petitioner towards the study of the documents, and on that basis it is contended that the affiliates were not properly identified by the concerned authority. This contention is misconceived. The study contemplated pertains to verification of the veracity of the documentation supplied and compliance with the applicable procedure. The Petitioner itself having identified Leap India Food and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd. as its associates, it was never the obligation of the tender scrutiny authority or the consultant to independently determine who constituted the associates or affiliates of the Petitioner or whose financials ought to be considered. The autonomy to
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR identify such entities always rested with the Petitioner. Having exercised such autonomy, the Petitioner cannot later seek to resile from its own declarations. On the financials being submitted, the consultant could determine whether the entities who were designated as affiliates, were infact affiliates or not. 11.13. The reliance placed on the decision in Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd.'s case is also misplaced. In the present matter, there exists a clear and categorical requirement under the tender conditions for the Petitioner to produce its GST registration certificate to enable verification of statutory filings, track record, and executed works, as well as a mandatory requirement to furnish the financials of the associate entities to assess financial capacity. These are substantive and essential eligibility requirements. The Petitioner, having
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR failed to comply with these obligations, cannot now contend that there was no requirement to produce such documents prior to bid evaluation or that the same could be furnished at a later stage, including at the time of release of bills. Such a contention is wholly untenable and contrary to the tender framework. 11.14. In the totality of the circumstances, it is evident that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness, perversity, or procedural illegality in the decision-making process of the tender issuing authority. The rejection of the Petitioner's bid flows directly from its own non- compliance with mandatory tender conditions and its subsequent attempts to alter foundational disclosures. No ground is made out to warrant interference by this Court. 11.15. In the totality of the circumstances, the disqualification of the Petitioner flows not from
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR any arbitrariness or procedural irregularity, but from its own failure to comply with mandatory tender conditions and its subsequent attempt to alter foundational disclosures. 11.16. Judicial review under Article 226 does not extend to condoning such defaults or rewriting tender conditions to accommodate a non- compliant bidder.
11.17. Accordingly, I answer Point No.3 by holding that the rejection of the Petitioner's bid on account of the evaluation made is proper and correct.
12. Answer to Point No.4: What order?
12.1. Though this Court would ordinarily have relegated the Petitioner to the appellate remedy available under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. Despite the same having been brought to the
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR notice of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner insisted that all contentions be addressed by this Court. Hence all contentions have been answered above.
12.2. Having considered all submissions, and in light of the Petitioner's admitted defaults in complying with mandatory tender documentation, particularly the non-submission of financials of nominated affiliates, the Petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. 12.3. The arguments advanced appear calculated to protract the tender process and delay implementation, which would have adverse financial implications for the State and impact timely availability of power to the public.
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4395 WP No. 26719 of 2025 HC-KAR 12.4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Though this Court could have imposed costs, it refrains from doing so.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN,PRS List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1