Karnataka High Court
M/S Aurashine Essentials Pvt Ltd vs M/S Karnataka Soaps And Detergents ... on 9 October, 2025
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
RESERVED ON : 26.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.10.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.27528/2025 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN :
M/S AURASHINE ESSENTIALS PVT LTD
FORMERLY M/S ADITI INTERNATIONAL
NO.212, HUBTOWN SOALRIES
NS PADKE MARG, ANDHERI EAST
MUMBAI-400069
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR BHARATH SHETTY.
INCORPORATED UNDER SEC 8 OF
COMPANIES ACT, 2013.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA SOAPS AND
DETERGENTS LIMITED
NO.27, INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB
BENGALURU-PUNE HIGHWAY
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560055.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
2
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 1956.
2. M/S MADHO AROMATICS AND
SPICES PVT LTD
NO.1/103, ORANGE COUNTY AHINS
KHAND 1, INDIRAPURAM
GHAZIABAD-2011014.
INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 2013.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. M/S KARNATAKA AROMAS
KCI CHAMBERS
NO.160, 3RD FLOOR
5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMRAJPET
BENGAKLURU-560018
REPRESENTED BY VINAYA S RAJ.
REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT 1937.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI. MAHESH CHOWDARY., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MANJULA D., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. MADHAV B KASHYAP., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 30.8.2025 ISSUED IN FAVOUR 3 OF 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF TENDER NOTIFICATION NO.KSDL/2025- 26/IND0870/CALL-2 DATED 13-08-2025 ANNEXURE-B;
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE TECHNICAL BID OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY HOLD THAT THE RESERVE AUCTION WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 29/08/2025 AS ILLEGAL; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO AWARD THE TENDER NOTIFICATION IN PROCUREMENT OF 7200 KGS OF SANDALWOOD OIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KARNATAKA TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENTS ACT, 1999 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD 4 CAV ORDER The first respondent has issued a notification dated 13.08.2025 [Tender Notification] inviting offers for the supply of 7200 kgs of sandalwood oil, and the last date for submission of the bids is 22.08.2025. The first respondent's case1 is that the selection process would be conducted through the Tender-cum-Reverse Auction Mechanism. The petitioner, the second and third respondents have submitted samples on 20.08.2025 to 21.08.2025. A Technical Committee has qualified the petitioner, the second and third respondents. The financial bids are opened on 28.08.2025. The first respondent, because there were three qualified bidders in the petitioner and second and third respondents, has initiated an Electronic Reverse Auction [the Reverse Auction] as contemplated under Rule 25-A of the 1 The first respondent has produced the details of the Tender Management from the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal [Annexure R3] to contend that it was made known that the selection would be through Tender-cum-Reverse Auction mechanism.5
Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000 [for short, the KTPP Rules].
2. The petitioner and the afore respondents have participated even in the Reverse Auction held on 29.08.2025. If the Petitioner was L1 in terms of the price quoted in the bid, the third respondent is L1 in quoting the price under the Reverse Auction. The first respondent has issued the Letter of Intent [LOI] dated 30.08.2025 to the third respondent2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent's decision to issue the LOI dated 30.08.2025 in favour of the third respondent, and hence, the petitioner has questioned this decision while seeking declaration that the first respondent could not have qualified the second respondent leading to Reverse Auction and for directions to the first respondent to award the tender to the petitioner. 2 The first respondent has issued the Purchase Order on 08.09.2025 6
3. The petitioner's grievance with the first respondent's decision to issue the LOI dated 30.08.2025 to the third respondent is premised on the ground that the second respondent's bid is treated as responsive only to justify a Reverse Auction; and to support this ground it is canvassed that [i] the Tender Accepting Authority could have selected a vendor in the Reverse Auction only if there are three and more responsive bids, [ii] there could not have been Reverse Auction because only the petitioner and the third respondent have submitted responsive bids, [iii] the first respondent has initiated Reverse Auction just a day after the financial bids are opened when the stipulation under the KTPP Rules is that Reverse Auction must begin on the third day excluding the date on which the financial bids are opened3.
3 This Court, 10.09.2025 recording the submissions, has directed the first respondent to defer the operation of the Work Order [LOI] dated 30.08.2025 issued in favour of the third respondent. This interim order is continued, but with the first respondent pleading urgency stating that it has limited stock which will lost only for 15 days, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 7 The submissions on behalf of the petitioner:
4. Sri Bipin Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration on why the second respondent's bid is non-responsive argues thus.
4.1 The Tender Notification stipulates, amongst others, that a bidder as a Non-Micro or Small Enterprises Manufacturer [Non-MSE Manufacturer]] should have supplied a quantity not less than 80% of the requirement [5,760 kgs] of sandalwood in any of the last three years i.e., 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 and a Micro or Small Enterprises Manufacturer [MSE Manufacturer], as certified by NSIC, should have supplied not less than 40% of the requirement in any of the last preceding two years i.e.,2023-24 and 2024-25 [2,808 kgs]. If the tenderer is an authorised representative or a trader, the stipulation is that the supply should be at an average of 30% of the requirement [2,160 kgs] in any one of the last three 8 preceding years. The documents to support these must be uploaded compulsorily. The second respondent, a trader, has purchased 1,185 kgs and 1000 kgs respectively between 27.03.2025 to 31.03.2025 from HRA Essential Oil Factory and that this last-minute purchase is only to meet the eligibility criteria of 2,185 kgs.
4.2 A tenderer must file an affidavit, as prescribed in Appendix R1 to the Tender Notification, declaring that the sandalwood oil supplied under this tender is derived from ethical and suitable sources and that the manufacturer holds a valid and legal permission from the concerned State Forest Department for storage and processing of sandalwood including conversion permits as applicable and that the manufacturer does not engage in unauthorised sourcing, cutting or felling of sandalwood. The Kannauj Forest Division, Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh has issued notice to the second respondent calling upon it to 9 provide the details of the sandalwood oil taken from Kannauj along with the stock register because the second respondent has transferred sandalwood oil to Rampal and Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, without obtaining transit pass from the Kannauj Forest Division and as such there is a violation of Sections 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act,1927 and Section 3, 28 of UP Timber and Other Forest Produce and Transportation Rules, 1978.
4.3 The second respondent is a trader and it proposes to source sandalwood oil from a manufacturer who, as contemplated under clause 14 of the Tender Notification, must file a declaration which, amongst others, must indicate that it is duly licensed to manufacture sandalwood oil/essentials. Even according to the first respondent, the second respondent proposes to source the requisite sandalwood oil from an entity which only has a licence under the Factories Act,1948 but no licence as is required otherwise. 10
4.4 The first respondent has resorted to Reverse Auction as contemplated under Rule 25A of the KTPP Rules, but in violation of the procedure that is contemplated for selection of a vendor through Reverse Auction. This rule stipulates that [a] the Reverse Auction method could be adopted when there are three or more qualified bidders, [b] the Tender Accepting Authority must constitute a committee comprising officers as deemed fit to supervise the conduct and processing of electronic Reverse Auction, and [c] the process of Reverse Auction should be started at 10 a.m. on the third working day excluding the day on which the financial bids are opened.
4.5 However, the second respondent's non responsive bid is treated as a responsive bid only to ensure there are a minimum of three bids and hence Reverse Auction, the first respondent has constituted no Committee and the financial bids were opened on 11 28.08.2025 and Reverse Auction held on 29.08.2025 with only a day's notice to the petitioner.
5. Sri Bipin Hegde, relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Banshidhar Constructions Pvt.
Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., and others4 and Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways [India] Ltd. v. Mandeepa Enterprises and others5, submits that the first respondent proposes to rely upon the financial benefit that has purportedly accrued to it because of Reverse Auction, but the Apex Court has clearly exposited in the latter decision that benefit to the public exchequer is certainly an important criterion in award of contract however it is equally in public interest to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which the bids are called.
5.1 Sri Bipin Hegde asserts that it is settled that a mere difference in the prices offered by 4 [2024] 10 SCC 273 5 2025 SCC Online SC 1959 12 tenderers need not be decisive and that the Courts must ensure a reasonable decision in a fair and transparent manner with no arbitrariness and that if any defect is found in the decision-making process, the courts must intervene. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others6 The submissions on behalf of the first respondent7:
6. Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, refuting the allegation that the second respondent's bid is deliberately treated as a responsive bid and Reverse Auction is held contrary to Rule 25A of the KTPP Rules, submits that the petitioner relies upon a Show Cause Notice issued for transportation of sandalwood oil without a permit but that is only a Show Cause Notice and not a 6 [2007] 14 SCC 517 7 Sri. Madhav B. Kashyap and Sri Karthik Reddy, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, have adopted the arguments on behalf of the first respondent. 13 concluded proceeding; the second respondent's purchase in March 2025 is characterized as a last- minute purchase but such purchase ensures eligibility under the Tender Notification; that the uploading of the license to manufacture under clause 14 is not mandatory but the second respondent has furnished an Undertaking from the manufacturer as required in terms of Appendix - P to the Tender Notification.
6.1 Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, on the Reverse Auction being held just day after the financial bids were opened and not after three days as contemplated under Rule 25A[3][iv] of the KTPP Rules, submits that this provision must be read harmoniously with the functioning of the e-procurement platform and the technical parameters. The learned Senior Counsel emphasises that the Standard Operational Procedure [SOP] for e-procurement automatically enables Reverse Auction window within 48 hours from the time of opening; and that this window remains accessible for a 14 limited duration and automatically closes thereafter and that the Reverse Auction was conducted between 10:00 am and 1:17 am on 29.08.2025.
6.2 Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, relying upon the Apex Court's decision in Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others (supra), submits that courts will not, in exercise of the power of judicial review, interfere even if there is some procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to the tenderer when the decision is free from arbitrariness, bias and mala fides. The learned Senior Counsel emphasises that the courts, as emphasised by the Apex Court in this decision, will not interfere unless it is shown that the process adopted or decision is mala fide or intended to favour someone or that the process adopted or decision is made so arbitrary and irrational that it cannot be said that such decision is by an authority acting reasonably and under law and when public interest is affected, and that in the present proceedings, the first respondent's decision to 15 award the contract to the third respondent cannot be called arbitrary or unreasonable, especially when the petitioner is not justified in its grievance.
6.3 Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty contends that this Court must consider the petitioner's case that there is non-compliance with the KTPP Rules in conducting Reverse Auction in the light of the afore and the facts that [a] the first respondent has saved to the public exchequer over Rs.88 crores, [b] the Petitioner has been awarded work orders for three consecutive years [the Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24] and it is based on price offered between Rs.2,49,899/- per kg to Rs.2,24,450/- per kg [c] even the others to whom work orders have been issued during these years, have offered prices between Rs.2,24,655/- and Rs.1,97,000/- as against the price of Rs.93,116/- per Kg offered by the third respondent.
16
6.4 Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty also submits that this Court must consider the petitioner's grievance in the backdrop of the following indisputable and material facts and the justified inference that the petitioner is blocking competitive pricing, which is one of the predominant purposes for which the tender is awarded.
• The first respondent initially floated a tender for the same quantity [7,200 kgs of sandalwood oil], and the petitioner was the sole technically qualified bidder, and therefore, to encourage broader participation and ensure competitive pricing, the tender was re-floated vide the Tender Notification.
• The petitioner quoted Rs.2,15,500/- per kg of sandalwood oil in the original bid, but in the Reverse Auction, the petitioner has offered Rs. 95,234/- per kg [52% less than 17 the originally quoted price]. This reduction is within a span of a day.
• The second and third respondents have also offered similarly reduced prices in the Reverse Auction; the third respondent has offered the least price in Rs.93,116/- per kg.
• The first respondent, because of the Reverse Auction, has saved Rs. 88 Crores, which it had to pay if the petitioner's bid as L1 [without Reverse Auction] was accepted.
Reasoning:
7. This Court, for the adjudication of the controversy presented by the rival submissions as aforesaid, must record certain significant aspects specific to the case. These significant and indisputable aspects can be stated thus. The petitioner has raised 18 concerns about the outcome of the Reverse Auction on 31.08.2025 but only in mentioning why the second respondent's bid should be treated as non-responsive specifying that this respondent had made a last-minute purchase of the sandalwood oil and had supplied sandalwood oil without transit permits. The petitioner has, on 02.09.2025, raised concerns about the Reverse Auction stating that this action would contravene the KTPP Rules and that the details of the tender process should be brought to the first respondent's Board of Directors before issuing a work order.
8. The petitioner has yet again caused a communication to the first respondent [on 04.09.2025], and in this communication, the petitioner has stated about the second respondent supplying sandalwood oil without transit permits from the Department of Forest, Government of Uttar Pradesh and that the Reverse Auction had been conducted on 29.08.2025 instead of 19 01.09.2025 as contemplated under Rule 25A of the KTPP Rules.
9. The petitioner, in none of these three communications, has stated that the decision to hold Reverse Auction is a surprise. If the aforementioned is the first significant and undisputed set of aspects which underscores the petitioner's grievance with the first respondent treating the second respondent's bid as responsive only on two counts, the next set of such significant and undisputed aspects are that:
[i] the first respondent has issued work orders for supply of sandalwood oil to the petitioner in the three previous financial years at prices between Rs.2,49,899/- and Rs.2,24,450/-, [ii] the third respondent has offered the least in the Reverse Auction in agreeing to supply sandalwood oil to the first respondent at Rs.93,116/- per kg and this is from the 20 original rate quoted at Rs.2,16,000/- per kg, [iii] the petitioner and the second respondent have also offered in the similar range in the original bid and have reduced the price in the Reverse Auction to Rs. 95,234/- and Rs.95,270/- per kg respectively and [iv] the first respondent has saved, because of the Reverse Auction, over Rs. 88 Crores.
10. The details of the price offered by the petitioners and the respondents [the second and third respondents] in the original bids and the Reverse Auction are as stated in the table below;
The details of The price The price The benefit to the
the Petitioner demanded demanded first respondent
[per Kg] in [per Kg] in when calculated
the Bid the Reverse for the Tender
[Round No. 1] Auction Quantity
[Round No. 2]
The petitioner
[M/s Aurashine Rs.2,15,500/- Rs.95,234/- Rs.86,59,15,200/-
Essentials Pvt.
Ltd.,]
21
The second
respondent Rs.2,08,500/- Rs.95,270/- Rs.81,52,56,000/-
[M/s Madho
Aromatics and
Spices Pvt. Ltd.,]
The third Rs.2,16,000/- Rs.93,116/- Rs.88,47,64,800/-
petitioner
[M/s Karnataka
Aromas]
There is a substantial difference in the price quoted by the petitioner/ the second and third respondent with a substantial advantage to the first respondent.
11. The settled law on the power of judicial review of a decision by the Government [and its undertakings] in floating tenders and issuing work orders on completion of the procedure is that the courts do not sit as courts of appeal but merely review the manner in which a government [its undertakings] has made a decision because the courts will not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. It is also settled that the judicial intervention with an administrative action such as to issue work orders on completion of the tender process is to prevent 22 arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides; and that if a decision to award a contract is bona fide and in public interest, the Courts will not, in exercise of the power of judicial review, intervene.
12. In this context, this Court must not only refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India8 and Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa [supra] but must observe that, in some circumstances, a petitioner may demonstrate a procedural aberration, an error in assessment or a prejudice, and the question is should the Courts intervene only because of such aberration or error in assessment or because a tenderer is prejudiced. The Apex court in Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa [supra] has clearly stated that;
.........If the decision relating to the award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, intervene even if a procedural 8 1994(6) SCC 651 23 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 interests at the cost of the public interest or to decide contractual disputes.
13. The canvass on behalf of the petitioner is that this exposition must be considered in the light of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Prakash Asphalting and Toll Highways India Ltd, [supra] wherein it is observed that, while benefit to the public exchequer is certainly an important criterion in the award of contract, it is equally in public interest to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited. However, this Court does not find any reason to opine that the Apex Court, in making the observation as afore, has in any manner diluted the importance of the tender process being devised to select "fairly the best of competitors on a competitive price without prejudice to the quality", and this comes out from the following;
24
33.1 This Court has held that tenders are invited on the basis of competitive bidding. On the one hand, it offers a fair opportunity to all those who are interested in competing for the contract and on the other hand, it affords the authority a choice to select the best of competitors on a competitive price without prejudice to the quality of work. Above all, it eliminates favouritism and discrimination in allotting public works to contractors. While benefit to the public exchequer is certainly an important criterion in award of contract, it is equally in public interest to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited.
14. The question is whether this Court must interfere with the first respondent's decision to issue the LOI dated 30.08.2025 to the third respondent, despite the very significant reduction in the price to be paid for the sandalwood oil, because:
[i] the petitioner has shown that the second respondent's non-responsive bid is 25 treated as responsive to pave the way for a Reverse Auction;
[ii] the first respondent has not constituted a Committee to supervise the Reverse Auction; and [iii] the first respondent has held Reverse Auction without waiting for three days from the date of opening the financial bid.
Reg. The second respondent's bid being non-
responsive:
15. An authorized representative or a trader, to be eligible to participate in the tender, should have satisfactorily supplied an average of 30% of the tender quantity [2160 kgs] of sandalwood oil in any one of the preceding three financial years in 2022-2023, 2023-24 and 2024-25. The second respondent is a trader, and it has purchased this quantity from a manufacturer in Uttar Pradesh and has supplied to a purchaser. The petitioner contends that the second respondent's 26 purchase and supply is only in March 2025 and as such it is a last-minute purchase. The tender stipulation on eligibility permits a trader or an authorized representative, if it has supplied 30% of the requirement in any one of the three preceding financial years, to participate in the tender.
15.1 The second respondent, though in the last month of the financial year 2024-2025, has supplied this quantity. The petitioner has not called in question this eligibility stipulation, and this Court must observe that the Tender Notification is the second call with the petitioner being the only participant in the first call. If the second respondent is thus eligible, the petitioner, who has participated in the tender without raising objection, cannot raise any question about this.
15.2 Further, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the first respondent, merely because a Show Cause Notice is issued by the concerned alleging that 27 sandalwood products/essentials are transmitted without Transit Permit it cannot be opined that the second respondent proposed to source through unethical means. Crucially, the second respondent has failed in the bid and it is the third respondent who has succeeded. Hence, there is no reason for interference on this ground.
Reg. The first respondent constituting a committee to supervise Reverse Auction.
16. The Rule 25A of the KTPP Rules is introduced by the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements [Second Amendment] Rules 2024. The Rule 25A[1] provides that a Tender Accepting Authority may select the Electronic Reverse Auction method for procurement of goods and services including construction works, but excluding consultancy services based on quality and cost-based selection, where the cost of procurement exceeds Rs. 2 Crores and where there are three or more qualified bidders. The proviso to 28 the sub-rule stipulates that if there are fewer than three qualified bidders, the Tender Accepting Authority may finalise the tender by following the procedure otherwise.
16.1 The Rule 25A[2] of the KTPP Rules stipulates that after the Tender Accepting Authority selects the procurement by Electronic Reverse Auction [Reverse Auction], the Tender Inviting Authority shall invite the tender notifying that the tender is subject to Reverse Auction with the further stipulation that the tender notifying invitation shall include the details relating to the access and registration for the Reverse Auction and process for the conduct of such auction. The Rule 25A[3] of the KTPP Rules details the procedure to be adopted for the conduct and processing of Reverse Auction. It firstly stipulates that after the submission of tenders, the tenders shall be opened by following procedure prescribed but the identity of the tenderers shall not be disclosed, and secondly, that the Tender Accepting Authority may constitute a committee 29 comprising such officers as it deems fit to supervise the conduct and processing of Reverse Auction9.
16.2 The crucial expression here is 'may', and the Rule making authority has not used the expression 'shall'. There is nothing to indicate that it is mandatory for the Tender Accepting Authority, when Reverse Auction method is selected, to constitute a Committee to supervise the Reverse Auction. Significantly in the present case, the first respondent is categorical that it has duly constituted a competent Committee for the said purpose; that the Reverse Auction was held on 29.08.2025 under the supervision of this Committee, which monitored the process as per the prescribed norms to ensure fairness, transparency and procedural integrity. If the sub rule says that the Tender Accepting Authority may constitute a Committee 9 Rule 25A[3][ii] - tender Accepting Authority may constitute a Committee consisting of such officers as it deems fit to supervise the conduct and processing of Electronic Reverse Auction. 30 and if the first respondent has indeed ensured such a Committee is constituted and overseen the Reverse Auction, this Court must opine that there is no reason for interference even on this ground.
Reg. The Reverse Auction being held on 29.08.2025 when the financial bids are opened on 28.08.2025
17. The Rule 25A[[3][iv] of the KTPP Rules reads that 'the process for Electronic Reverse Auction shall be initiated at 10 a.m. on the third working day excluding the day on which the financial bids are opened'. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the financial bids are opened on 28.08.2025 and that the Reverse Auction is held on 29.08.2025 starting from 10 a.m. The petitioner contends that there is a procedural irregularity because of this; and as against this assertion, the first respondent relies upon the functioning of the e-procurement system platform and the SOP.
31
17.1 The first respondent asserts that once the financial bids are opened the e-procurement system automatically enables the Reverse Auction window within 48 hours from the time of opening and that this auction window remains accessible for a limited duration and closes automatically thereafter. The petitioner has not disputed this technical enablement, and the question of non-compliance with the Rules must be examined in this context.
17.2 The SOP for the functioning of the e- portal, despite the Rule as aforesaid, is for a window within 48 hours from the time the financial bids are opened. Admittedly, the Reverse Auction is only through the Karnataka Procurement Portal, which functions based on this SOP. This Court must opine that the decision to conduct Reverse Auction on 29.08.2025, though because of the constraint brought in by the SOP 32 will be a deviation from the stipulation under Rule 25A[3][iv] of the KTPP Rules.
17.3 However, this deviation can only be called an aberration as mentioned by the Apex Court in Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa [supra] because the petitioner, the second and third respondents have participated in the Reverse Auction, which, as seen from the records, is between 10:00 am and 1:15am. It is not even the petitioner's case that this procedure is adopted only for the present procurement. This aberration cannot overwhelm the public interest that is achieved in securing a price difference of over Rs.88 Crores. Therefore, there is no reason for interference even on this ground.
As such, the petition is rejected dissolving the interim order granted.
Sd/-
(B.M. SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE nv*