Karnataka High Court
Sangappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 April, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779
WP No. 200785 of 2026
C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026
WP No. 201062 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 200785 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 200891 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201062 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
IN WP No. 200785/2026
BETWEEN:
RAMESH
S/O HUCHPPA WATHAR,
AGE-43 YEARS, OCC- CONTRACTOR,
R/O. DARGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, INDI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by SACHIN
(BY SRI. SUSHIT GANACHARI.,ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
(HESCOM) NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT. 580025
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779
WP No. 200785 of 2026
C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026
WP No. 201062 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
PROJECT MONITORING CELL (PMC) HESCOM,
HUBBALLI-580025.
4. M/S ROOGI ENGINEERING CO.
PLOT NO. 85, PADMAVATHI COLONY NEAR
MALLIKARJUN ASHRAM, VIJAYAPUR -586101
REP BY ITS OWNER BASAVARAJ S/O REVAPPA RUGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADV FOR R2
AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO- a)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTER OF
INTENT VIDE NO.HESCOM/SEE(PMC)EEP3/AEE-2/GK-
888/2025-26/CYS- 10578 DATED 03.02.2026 PASSED BY R3
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO. 4 AS PER
ANNEXURE-F , ETC.,
IN WP NO. 200891/2026
BETWEEN:
SANGAPPA S/O SHARANAPPA MENDEGAR
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: CLASS-I ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
R/O RAMBHAPUR,
DIST. VIJAYPURA, DIST. VIJAYAPURA 586104
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUSHIT GANACHARI.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779
WP No. 200785 of 2026
C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026
WP No. 201062 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560001
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
(HESCOM)
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 580025
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE)
PROJECT MONITORING CELL (PMC)
HESCOM, HUBBALLI 580025
4. M/S MAHESH ELECTRICAL AND TELECOM
SHANKAR HANAMANTH KAGANE,
REP BY IT MANAGING DIRECTOR, FLAT NO. 205
AJINKYATARA BUILDING, ABOVE DATA CARE,
GANESH MALA BUST STOP, NEAR SAVAJI HOTEL
SINGGAD ROAD, PUNE 411030
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADV FOR
R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PETITIONER
TO-a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
TENDER NOTIFICATION VIDE NO. HESCOM/2025-
26/EL/WORK INDENT 888 DATED NIL AS PER ANNEXURE-C
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779
WP No. 200785 of 2026
C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026
WP No. 201062 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. 201062/2026
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND N JAGGALI S/O NINGAPPA,
AGE. 31 YEARS,
OCC. SUPER GRADE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR,
R/O. NO.112, SAI RESIDENCY,
NEAR FONIX SCHOOL,
BAGALKOT RINGROAD,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUSHIT GANACHARI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
(HESCOM),
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 025.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE)
PROJECT MONITORING CELL (PMC),
HESCOM, HUBBALLI-580 025.
4. M/S SANTOSH ELECTRICALS
SANTOSH M KUDALINGAPPAGOUL,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
AT POST-K, SHIVAPUR,
TQ. SAVADATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129.
R/O S.NO.329, K-SHIVAPUR,
MADAMGERI ROAD, MADAMGERTI,
DIST.BELGAVI-591129.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHESHADRI JAYASHANKAR, AGA FOR R1;
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779
WP No. 200785 of 2026
C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026
WP No. 201062 of 2026
HC-KAR
SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADV FOR
R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE TENDER
NOTIFICATION VIDE NO. HESCOM 2025-26/EL/WORK
INDENT889 DATED NIL AS PER ANNEXURE-B, ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. The above captioned writ petitions are filed with a prayer to quash the letter of intent vide No.HESCOM/SEE(PMC)EEP3/AEE-2/GK-889/2025-26/CYS- 11501 dated 25.02.2026 issued by the respondent No.4 and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restructure the Ganga Kalyana works into piece- work/village wise contracts in accordance with the Government Order dated 11.12.2025 and Section 4(e) of the -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779 WP No. 200785 of 2026 C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026 WP No. 201062 of 2026 HC-KAR Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act, 1999').
2. Since the question involved in these writ petitions are identical, with the consent of the learned counsels they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, the action of the respondent is in violation of the Government order dated 11.12.2025 and also Section 4(e) of the Act, 1999. He submits that, the impugned tender conditions are tailor made to favour respondent No.4 and exclude the local contractors. He submits that, the action of the respondents is not only discriminatory and arbitrary, but it is also violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that, the petitioners who have not at all participated in the tender -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779 WP No. 200785 of 2026 C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026 WP No. 201062 of 2026 HC-KAR proceedings cannot question the tender conditions at this stage. He submits that, the work order has been already issued in favour of the successful bidder, and accordingly he prays to dismiss the writ petitions.
5. The tender notification was published on 20.08.2025 and the last date for submission of the bids was 15.11.2025. The technical bids were evaluated and thereafter, the financial bid was opened on 12.12.2025 and contract is said to have been awarded to the lowest bidder and the letter of intent was also accordingly issued and subsequently an agreement is also executed in favour of the successful bidder. These writ petitions are filed subsequently challenging the letter of intent and the tender conditions by persons who had not participated in the tender process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India Vs. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway Limited, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 243 in paragraph No.20, has observed as follows:
"20. While considering the relief claimed by the respondent (claimant), the same should have been -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779 WP No. 200785 of 2026 C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026 WP No. 201062 of 2026 HC-KAR tested on the touchstone of the principle governing the tender process, especially when the validity of the tender document has not been put in issue or challenged before any competent forum. Going by the terms and conditions in the tender documents, as already alluded to in paragraph 8 above, there is no tittle of doubt that the right of the claimant (respondent) to match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR would come into play only if the respondent was to participate in the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting tenders from the interested parties. The objective of tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent mechanism but to encourage competition and give equal opportunity to all tenderers with the end result of getting a fair offer or value for money. The plain wording of the eligibility clause in the tender documents and the incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent was required to participate in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid (technical and financial). The fact that a deeming clause has been provided in the tender document that if the respondent was to participate in the bidding process, it shall be deemed to fulfill all the requirements of the tender clauses 3 to 6 of the RFP, being the existing concessionaire of the Project, does not exempt the respondent from participating in the tender process; rather the tenor of the terms of the documents made it obligatory for the respondent to participate in the tender process to be considered as a -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779 WP No. 200785 of 2026 C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026 WP No. 201062 of 2026 HC-KAR responsive bidder, along with others. Having failed to participate in the tender process and, more so, despite the express terms in the tender documents, validity whereof has not been challenged, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever. Only the entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about the non-fulfillment or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the concerned tender documents. The respondent who chose to stay away from the tender process, cannot be heard to whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of the written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the respondent had not participated, in law, the offer submitted by the eligible bidders is required to be considered on the basis of the stated terms and conditions. Thus, if the claim of the respondent was to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the terms and conditions specified in the subject tender document, the respondent has no case whatsoever."
6. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the persons who have stayed away from the tender process cannot be heard to whittle down the rights of the eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of the written and express terms and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779 WP No. 200785 of 2026 C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026 WP No. 201062 of 2026 HC-KAR conditions and such a person cannot be permitted to question the terms and conditions of the tender notification. In the case of Subir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported in 2020 SCC Online Cal. 2213, the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 has observed as under:
"4. The more important factor is that the tender process in this case opened sometime in March, 2019 and the closing date for submitting online bids was April 1, 2019. the writ petition was filed in January, 2020. Though it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the time to submit the bids was extended, no specific date in such regard is indicated. What is apparent is that the writ petitioner did not participate in the bidding process and yet chose to challenge the same.
5. It is possible that a prospective bidder finds the terms of the tender documents to be unfair or illegal and challenges the same, but such challenge has to be before the time to put in the bids is closed. At any rate, if a bid is made and the bid is thrown out on an illegal or unfair ground contained in the tender documents, even then, a challenge can be fashioned. But a person who has not participated in the bidding process at all cannot challenge the tender conditions on
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779 WP No. 200785 of 2026 C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026 WP No. 201062 of 2026 HC-KAR any ground whatsoever. This admitted aspect of the matter escaped the attention of the Single Bench while passing the impugned order of January 15, 2020.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated January 15, 2020 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Since the best arguable case of the writ petitioner will not result in any of the tender terms being altered as the writ petitioner did not participate in the process at all, the writ petition itself is dismissed. Nothing in this order will be construed to be an approval of the terms and conditions of the tender document and in an appropriate challenge, the same may be considered in accordance with law.
7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid two Judgments, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17266/2022 disposed of on 09.11.2022 in the case of Mahalakshmi Engineering Works and another Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, has held that, the persons who have not participated in the tender process has no locus-standi to question the terms and conditions of the tender notification.
8. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3779 WP No. 200785 of 2026 C/W WP No. 200891 of 2026 WP No. 201062 of 2026 HC-KAR ground that, the petitioners who have not participated in the tender process, have no locus-standi to question the terms and conditions of the tender notification and also the letter of intent issued to the successful bidder.
9. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER The writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE Svh/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65