Karnataka High Court
Venkateswara Constructions vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760
WP No. 102491 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 102491 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
VENKATESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.204,
GOVINDA BUILDING, MG ROAD PANAJI,
ALSO HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT FLAT NO.103,
AHALADHA RESIDENCY, VETORNARY COLONY,
VIJAYAWADA-520008,
R/BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
ROHIT KUMAR SON OF RAGHU RAMARAO,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING A-1 RADHA RASIDENCY,
DESAI PARK, KUSUGAL ROAD,
KESHWAPUR, DHARWAD-580023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. YASH R. NADAKARNI &
SRI. PRANAV S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATES)
VIJAYALAKSHMI AND:
M KANKUPPI
1. UNION OF INDIA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI.
2. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
R/BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
RAIL SOUDHA, NEAR RAILWAY COLONY,
HUBBALLI-580023.
3. THE DIVISIONAL REGIONAL MANAGER,
HUBLI ENGINEERING DIVISION OFFICE,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760
WP No. 102491 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
CO-ORDINATION,
HUBLI ENGINEERING DIVISION OFFICE,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023.
5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
CENTRAL, HUBLI ENGINEERING
DIVISION OFFICE,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023.
6. M/S V.R. NAYAK ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS HUBLI
A REGISTERED COMPANY
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT,
1ST FLOOR VINAYAK COMPLEX
OPP TOWN HALL, J C NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580020,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5;
SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
(a) CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 PERTAINING TO TENDER AND
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 10.04.2025 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.4 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.6 IN
RESPECT OF TENDER NO.40UBL2425DT310125ITEM-02
FOR SUPPLY OF BALLAST AT KUSUGAL DEPOT IN THE
JURISDICTION OF SR.DEN/CENTRAL/UBL.
(b) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION OR QUASHING, THE LETTER OF
ACCEPTANCE DATED 10.04.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.4 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.6 IN RESPECT OF
TENDER NO.40UBL2425DT310125ITEM-02 FOR SUPPLY OF
BALLAST AT KUSUGAL DEPOT IN THE JURISDICTION OF
SR.DEN/CENTRAL/UBL, AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY,
AND VIOLATIVE OF THE MANDATORY TENDER CONDITIONS
AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760
WP No. 102491 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Heard learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioner and learned counsels for respondents.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner quashing the letter of acceptance dated 10.04.2025 issued by the 4th respondent in favour of respondent No.6 in respect of the tender for supply of the ballast at Kusugal Depot of the South Western Railway and for a consequential relief of mandamus
3. Petitioner is the construction firm involved in business of providing Railway Infrastructure Services, but not limited to supply of ballast track maintenance, and allied civil works. Petitioner has been operating in this field for the past 20 years and earning a credible reputation for quality, compliance and timely execution of works. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. The 3rd respondent DRM Hubli, Engineering Division, SWR got issued an E-Tender bearing No.40UBL 2425 DT 310125 ITEM-02, which was uploaded on 10.02.2025. The tender pertains to supply of ballast at Kusugal Depot under the jurisdiction of Senior DEN/Central/UBL. The tender specified a completion period of 12 months. The tender closing date was fixed as 03.03.2025 and the bidding commencement date was set as 17.02.2025. The tender value was fixed at Rs.5,46,19,687/-. The petitioner submitted his bid on 03.03.2025 along with all requisite technical and financial details and relevant certificates in accordance with the stipulations of the tender for supply of ballast in the specified area.
5. It is the vehement contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner that eligibility criteria has been specified in the tender document, which is standard financial criteria and standard technical criteria which is stated at cause 10.1 to 10.5 of the tender document. It is -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR further contended by learned senior counsel that total 09 bidders participated in the tender process, amongst them, respondent No.6 one of the bidders. Respondent No.6 was considered as the L1 and petitioner was declared as the L2 and accordingly, the letter of acceptance was issued on 10.04.2025 to respondent No.6. This being the facts, it is the contention of learned Senior counsel that upon verification of the credentials Certificate/Work Done Certificate dated 28.02.2024 submitted by respondent No.6, now considered as L1 by respondent No.4, it is discovered that the said certificate was issued outside the permissible 60 days prior to the date of invitation of the present tender. Therefore, it failed to satisfy the technical eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause 10.5 of the IRGCC. Learned counsel further contends that despite the technical shortcoming in the credentials of respondent No.6, the letter of acceptance was issued in his favour. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner submitted a representation/complaint to the Senior Deputy General -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR Manager(Vigilance), South Western Railway, Hubballi bringing to the knowledge the violation of the technical requirements pertaining to work experience, which was fraudulently submitted by respondent No.6 and therefore, when the Work certificate itself clearly shows that respondent No.6 is ineligible, the question of entertaining the such certificate of the work done issued by respondent No.4 to respondent No.6 itself is unsustainable and same cannot be taken into consideration for issuance of the letter of intent to respondent No.6. Therefore and the Work Done Certificate is not proper document filed only with a malafide intention and same having been accepted by respondent No.4 is liable to be rejected. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner.
6. It is also contended by learned senior counsel that despite the complaint and representation given to respondents No.3 and 4 against respondent No.6 and despite there being no proper eligibility criteria as prescribed in the tender document, the letter of intent -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR given to respondent No.6 is illegal, contrary to the requirements as per the tender document and the same requires to be quashed.
7. The learned senior counsel further contends that the action of respondent No.3 in awarding the tender to respondent No.6 is clearly arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and the document so produced is also fraudulent, concocted document as the date which appears is also not the correct date and in violation of the terms and conditions.
8. Learned senior counsel also contends that the letter of acceptance is issued in favour of respondent No.6 is in direct contravention to Clause 10.5 of the Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract (IRGCC) April, 2022, which mandates the credentials certificate for substantially completed work must not be issued prior to 60 days from the date of invitation of the present tender. Therefore, it is further contended that there is no provision -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR for relaxation of these conditions in the tender document. It is further contended that respondents No.3 and 4 have failed to apply their mind to the mandatory technical eligibility conditions required for fulfilment of participation in the tender process and despite the representation given by the petitioner with regard to the 6th respondent not being eligible for participation in the tender and document produced is invalid and same was not acted and considered by respondent No.3. Therefore, in view of the same, the document and certificate relied by respondent No.6 ought to have been rejected and the petitioner being the next eligible tenderer with the lowest bid, ought to have been considered by respondents, which has not been done. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the same and to cancel the letter of acceptance given to respondent No.6 and award same to the petitioner.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court the requirements of the tender and the eligibility criteria, -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR which are specified in Clause 10 of the tender document. Wherein, Clause 10.1 to 10.5 mentioned about the technical eligibility criteria and financial eligibility criteria so also the learned senior counsel points out the explanation to paragraph No.10 of the tender form and including Clause 10.1 to 10.5 with regard to the eligibility criteria and brings to the notice of this Court that substantially completed work means an ongoing work in which payment equal to or more than 90% of the present contract value excluding the payment made for adjustment of price variation (PVC), if any, has been made to the contractor in that ongoing contract and no proceedings of termination of contract on Contractor's default has been initiated. The credential certificate in this regard should have been issued not prior to 60 days of date of invitation of present tender. On the basis of these eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender document, it is submitted that it does not meet the standard for allotment of the bid in favour of respondent No.6 on the basis of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR Work Done Certificate issued by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.6 at Annexure-D dated 28.02.2024.
10. In view of there being blatant flaw in production of the documents of the certificate of work done issued by respondent no.6 and the respondents No.3 and 4 having not considered these aspects of ineligibility of respondent No.6 despite bringing to the notice by the petitioner same requires to be quashed as respondent No.6 is ineligible and the document of work done certificate cannot be taken for consideration as is apparent flaw in the documentation.
11. Per Contra, the learned counsel Sri M.B.Kanavi appearing for the Railway Department has filed detailed objections contending that the 6th respondent was the successful bidder being the lowest bidder, the Tender Committee evaluated the eligibility criteria of all the bidders including respondent No.6 and having noticed the Work Done Certificate of respondent No.6 and there being an issue with regarding the date of issuance of Work Done
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR Certificate sought for clarification from the Senior DEN/West/UBL with regard to error in the date and what is the genuine date. The same having been replied in the documents at Annexures-R2 and R3 both dated 09.04.2025, which was clarified that date of issuance of Work Experience Certificate is on 28.02.2025 and date mentioned as 28.02.2024 is due to a typographical error. On consideration of the same, the Tender Committee re- evaluated the eligibility based on the clarification and having found that the 6th respondent submitted all the mandatory documents including bid security PAN GST registration and all other documents as required, the letter of acceptance was given and the 6th respondent was considered as lowest bidder for the work order and accordingly, the work order was issued.
12. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner's credentials are not disputed and the respondent/Railway Department has followed the compliances of the tender process with regard to the strict
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR guidelines and specific tender conditions for evaluation of the lowest bidder and since the petitioner's bid evaluated as 3rd lowest bidder, he was not taken into consideration and 6th respondent being the first lowest, he was taken into consideration for grant of letter of acceptance and accordingly, the certificate was issued. Learned counsel further contends that the representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2025 was examined, but the Tender Committee had already validated the 6th respondent's certificate post clarification and found that there was no illegality perversity or violation of the principals of natural justice and has followed the due process of law.
13. It is further contended by learned counsel for the Railway Department that the letter of acceptance was also given to respondent No.6 on 10.04.2025 and he has already commenced the work, more than 50% of the work has been completed and he further contends that the petitioner has suppressed these facts that the 6th respondent has already commenced the work as on the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR date of filing of the writ petition and obtained the interim order from this Court, whereby as on the date of interim order dated 17.04.2025, the work order was already given on 10.04.2025 and the bank guarantee was given by respondent No.6 on 15.04.2025 and the work had commenced on the same day. Whereas, these factual aspects were not submitted before the Court and an interim order was granted without bringing these facts on 17.04.2025, on which date, respondent No.6 had already begun the contract work. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent/Railway Department that there is no violation of the tender procedures and the eligibility criteria and requirements and after following due process of law, the successful bidder has been selected. Accordingly, the Letter of Acceptance was given and the 6th respondent has commenced the work. Thereby he seeks for dismissal of this petition.
14. Learned counsel representing respondent No.6 Sri Shivasai M. Patil, concurs with the argument put forth
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR by the learned counsel appearing for respondent/Railway Department and he further adds that in the letter dated 28.02.2024 issued by the Railway Department in favour of respondent no.6, there is a typographical error in mentioning the date, as 28.02.2024, where the actually issued date is on 28.02.2025 and the certificate issued is in accordance with law and has no malafides or suppression of facts submitted by respondent No.6 on careful verification of all the work done, the certificate has been issued on being satisfied with the same by respondent/Railway Authorities. He also contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Railway Department in selecting respondent No.6 as the lowest bidder and issued letter of acceptance and work order. It is also contended by him that respondent No.6 has also commenced the work by furnishing the bank guarantee as required and there is no deviation or violation of any of the Rules or the tender conditions. It is also contended by him that the 6th respondent is carrying
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR on several Railway projects at various places and having good reputation and having turnover of more than Rs.30 crores, the certificate for which is taken at Annexure-R19 and is accepted for grant of work order in favour of respondent No.6. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondent No.6 that the present petition is filed with malafide intention is in the form of colourable exercise of power, it is false and baseless and only with an intention to see that the tender work is not awarded and continued by the respondent No.6 despite having given the bank guarantee and having started the work as on 15.04.2005 itself. He further contends that petitioners have suppressed these facts before this Court and obtained an interim order, on these grounds he seeks dismissal of this petition.
15. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. The issuance of the E-Tender is not in dispute. The participation of the tender by the petitioner and respondent No.6 and one more contractor is not in dispute. The petitioner was L-3 and respondent No.6 was L2 and another person was L1. Due to technical reasons, L1 was rejected, there by the L2 respondent No.6 is selected and he has been given letter of acceptance and work order as on 10.04.2025 and the bank guarantee was given on 15.04.2025 and on the same day work was commenced by the 6th respondent.
17. Now coming to the aspect of tender conditions, which is relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for respondents, the eligibility criterias are mentioned in Clause 10 of the tender document. Though, the learned senior counsel mentioned the Clause No.10 of the tender document with regard to eligibility criteria relied upon substantially completed work means an ongoing work in which payment equal to or more than 90% of the present contract value
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR excluding the payment made for adjustment of price variation (PVC) if any, has been made to the contractor in that ongoing contract and on proceedings of termination of contract on Contractor's default has been initiated. The credential certificate in this regard should have been issued not prior to 60 days of date of invitation of present tender. The document produced by the 6th respondent at Annexure-D being invalid document with regard to the date being wrongly mentioned and at column No.12 to show that currency extension is still pending for 5th extension time from 31.08.2024 30.11.2024 and the column No.8 to show that the actual date of completion is work in progress, may not help respondent No.6 would not certainly help respondent No.6 in the contract being awarded. It is relevant to read through the clause 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 (1) to 10.5(6) :
"10.3. Bid Capacity: The tender/technical bid will be evaluated based on bid capacity formula detailed as Annexure-VI.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR 10.4. No Technical and Financial credentials are required for tenders having advertised value up to Rs 50 lakh.
10.5. Credentials if submitted in foreign currency shall be converted into Indian currency ie., Indian Rupee as under:
The conversion rate of US Dollars into Rupees shall be the daily representative exchange rates published by the Reserve Bank of India or entity authorized by RBI to do so for the relevant date or immediately previous date for which rates have been published. Where, relevant date shall be as on the last day of month previous to the one in which tender is invited. In case of any other currency, the same shall first be converted to US Dollars as on the last day of month previous to the one in which tender is invited, and the amount so derived in US Dollars shall be converted into Rupees at the aforesaid rate. The conversion rate of such currencies shall be the daily representative exchange rates published by the International Monetary Fund for the relevant date or immediately previous date for which rates have been published.
[Explanation for Para 10 of the Tender Form (Second Sheet) including Para 10.1 to 10.5 - Eligibility Criteria:
1. Substantially Completed Work means an ongoing work in which payment equal to or more than
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR 90% of the present contract value (excluding the payment made for adjustment of Price variation (PVC), if any) has been made to the contractor in that ongoing contract and no proceedings of termination of contract on Contractor's default has been initiated. The credential certificate in this regard should have been issued not prior to 60 days of date of invitation of present tender.
2. In case a work is started prior to 07 (seven) years, ending last day of month previous to the one in which tender is invited, but completed in last 07 (seven) years, ending last day of month previous to the one in which tender is invited, the completed work shall be considered for fulfillment of credentials.
3. If a work is physically completed and completion certificate to this extent is issued by the concerned organization but final bill is pending, such work shall be considered for fulfillment of credentials.
4. In case of completed work, the value of final bill (gross amount) including the PVC amount (if paid) shall be considered as the completion cost of work. In case final bill is pending, only the total gross amount already paid including the PVC amount (if paid) shall be considered as the completion cost of work. In case of substantially completed work, the total gross amount already paid including the PVC amount (if paid), as mentioned in the certificate, shall be considered as the cost of substantially completed work.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. If a bidder has successfully completed a work as subcontractor and the work experience certificate has been issued for such work to the subcontractor by a Govt. Organization or public listed company as defined in Note for Item 10.1 Para 10 of the Tender Form (Second Sheet), the same shall be considered for the purpose of fulfillment of credentials.
6. In case a work is considered similar in nature for fulfillment of technical credentials, the overall cost including the PVC amount (if paid) of that completed work or substantially completed work, shall be considered and no separate evaluation for each component of that work shall be made to decide eligibility."
18. It is stated in Explanation.3:- If a work is physically completed and completion certificate to this extent is issued by the concerned organisation, but final bill is pending such work shall be considered for fulfilment of credentials, so also in Explanation.4:- In case of completed work, the value of final bill (gross amount) including the PVC amount (if paid) shall be considered as the completion cost of work. Explanation.5 deals with if a bidder has successfully completed a work as subcontractor
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR and the work experience certificate has been issued for such work to the subcontractor by a Government Organisation or public listed company as default in note for Item 10.1 Para 10 of the tender form, the same shall be considered for the purpose of fulfilment of credentials. Explanation.6 deals with in case a work is considered similar in the nature for fulfilment of technical credentials, the overall cost including the PVC amount of that completed work or substantially completed work, shall be considered and no separate evaluation for each component of that work shall be made to decide eligibility.
19. After having analyzed requirements and the eligibility criteria and the explanations provided to the eligibility criteria Clause 10.5 Clause 6 very clearly states that there shall be no separate evaluation for each component of the work to be made for deciding the eligibility criteria, so therefore respondents No.3 and 4 Railway Department has given work done certificate to respondent No.6, which is produced at Annexure-D on the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR basis of which, the 6th respondent is considered as L1 and the work contract has been given accepting the bank guarantee and he has already commenced the work. Once the work done certificate has been already issued to the 6th respondent as per Explanation.6 there need not be a separate evaluation for each of the component for the work that has already been done. Once the certificate is issued, the same would amount to fulfilment of the credentials required for participation in the bid.
20. Therefore, I am in agreement with learned counsel for respondents that the letter of acceptance and letter of acceptance is given in favour of Railway Department to respondent No.6 does not appear to be illegal or contrary to the technical bid or the tender documents or eligibility criteria. So also no explanation is given by the petitioner for not mentioning to the Court about the grant of work order and that respondent No.6 had already commenced the work on 15.04.2025 by producing the bank guarantee and for that matter 50% of
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8760 WP No. 102491 of 2025 HC-KAR the work is over, pursuant to which date, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition and as on date of obtaining interim order that is on 17.04.2025. Therefore, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that there is no violation or illegality in the respondent/Railway Authority granting respondent No.6 the letter of acceptance and issuance of the work order. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2