Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Beckhaul Digital Technologies Private ... vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2025

Author: B M Shyam Prasad

Bench: B M Shyam Prasad

                                    -1-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:37004
                                             WP No. 26547 of 2025


            HC-KAR



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

             DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                               BEFORE
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
             WRIT PETITION NO. 26547 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
            BETWEEN:

            BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES
            PRIVATE LIMITED
            A COMPANY INCORPORATEDX UNDER THE
            COMPANIES ACT 2013,
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
            708, 7TH FLOOR, EVERSHINE TOWER,
            AMARPALI CIRCLE, VAISHALI NAGAR,
            JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN 302021.

            ALSO AT
            CORPORATE OFFICE,
            UNIT NO.1010, 10TH FLOOR,
            TOWER A SPAZE I TECH PARK,
Digitally   SOHNA ROAD,
signed by   GURUGRAM 122018
VANAMALA    HARYANA
N           REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS AUTRHOSISED
Location:   REPRESENTATIVE MR. ANSH GUPTA
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                                    ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. THIMMAIAH M.C. AND SRI. MARUTHI S.H.,
            ADVOCATES FOR SRI. JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL,
            ADVOCATE)
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:37004
                                   WP No. 26547 of 2025


 HC-KAR




AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
     VIDHANA SOUDHA,
     BANGALORE 560001.
     REP BY ITS SECRETARY

2.   KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
     CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL)
     A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
     THE COMPANIES ACT 2013,
     HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KAVERI BHAVAN,
     K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560009.
     REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR


                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE
GENERAL     A/W    SMT.   RAKSHITHA    D.J,   MS.
ADOORYA HARISH, ADVOCATES)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTORARIFIED MANDAMUS
QUASHING       THE     BID   ENQUIRY      NO.
KPTCL/CEE/SLDC/SEE/SCADA/MDF-012/2024-
25(CALL-2) DATED 10.06.2025 LEADING TO THE
TENDER BEARING REFERENCE NO. KPTCL/2025-
26/SE2262 DATED 19.07.2025 AS DISCLOSED IN
THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PORTAL,
VIDE ANNEXURE-A OR IN THE ALTERNATIVEB.
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
                                   -3-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:37004
                                              WP No. 26547 of 2025


HC-KAR




RESPONDENT TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL
LODGED      VIDE  REPRESENTATION    DATED
22.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN RESPECT OF
BID ID 86025766.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH
MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD


                     ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who has participated in the tender issued by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited [the second respondent] for Selection of Agency for Monetization of Dark Fiber and O&M of the Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) Network, has sought for following reliefs:

a. quashing the Bid Enquiry No.KPTCL/CEE/SLDC/SEE/SCADA/MD F-012/2024-25 (CALL-2) dated 10.06.2025 leading to the Tender bearing Reference No. KPTCL/2025-26/SE2262 dated 19.07.2025 [ANNEXURE-A]; or in the alternative -4- NC: 2025:KHC:37004 WP No. 26547 of 2025 HC-KAR b. for direction to the Respondent to dispose off the petitioner's appeal lodged vide representation dated 22.08.2025 [ANNEXURE-E].

2. This Court, on 08.09.2025, has recorded the petitioner's grievance in a nutshell thus, Upon hearing Mr. J. Hudson Samuel, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the petitioner's essential grievance that its appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 is rendered ineffective because the reasons for the rejection of the petitioner's bid is not made known, Ms. Rakshitha D. J, a learned standing counsel for the second respondent, is called upon to accept notice. ...............

When the petition is listed next on 15.09.2025, accommodation is sought on behalf of the second respondent to place on record the details of the reasons for treating the petitioner's technical bid non- responsive.

-5-

NC: 2025:KHC:37004 WP No. 26547 of 2025 HC-KAR

3. Presently, Mr. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, the learned Advocate General for the respondents, places on record a copy of the Technical Scrutiny Committee proceedings dated 13.08.2025 in response to the petitioner's case that the reasons are not furnished and submits that the petitioner's bid is treated non- responsive because it does not fulfil all pre-qualification criteria. The learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner's appeal is listed on 19.09.2025 at 03.00 p.m. with the appellate authority and it will be open to the petitioner to seek amendment in the light of the reasons assigned and also urge all other grounds that could be, but there will be no occasion for this Court's interference with the appeal pending.

4. This Court finds considerable force in the submission that the petitioner's grievance about the failure to give reasons for refusal of its bid and the appeal is rendered ineffective is largely answered with -6- NC: 2025:KHC:37004 WP No. 26547 of 2025 HC-KAR a copy of the Technical Scrutiny Committee's proceedings dated 13.08.2025 now being placed on record and a copy thereof being served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file application/s in the pending appeal to raise additional grounds confined not just to the merits of the reasons as recorded in the Minutes but also about any procedural irregularity that could be.

Sd/-

(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB