Karnataka High Court
Sahayadri Community Development And ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 100122 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 100126 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100128 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100133 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100134 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 100135 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.100122 OF 2026
BETWEEN
Digitally signed by THE RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION ®
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES
Location: HIGH REGISTRATION AT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE
COURT OF AT PLOT NO.8 IIIRD CROSS, BASAVA NAGAR PART-1
KARNATAKA
HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA MURGOD,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT,
THE RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION ®
R/O. PLOT NO.8, IIIRD CROSS, BASAVA NAGAR PART-1,
HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAHUL SHRIKANT BHUSHI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-1.
2. THE SECRETARY AND CEO
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND
OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S
WELFARE BOARD, KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND,
DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 029.
3. THE JOINT SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND
OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S
WELFARE BOARD, KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND,
DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M. R. C. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19-12-2025 BEARING
NO.KBOCWWB/MMU/CR-14/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS. B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER FOR COSTS MAY KINDLY BE PASSED IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.100126 OF 2026
BETWEEN
SHUBODAYA SEVA SAMSTHE ®
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
MAHAVEERA COMPLEX, D.NO.358, 8TH MAIN,
8TH CROSS, P.J. EXTENSION DAVANGERE-577002
NOW HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D.NO.389/12,
BASAPPA TOWER, 8TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANGERE REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY SRI. KUMAR. H.B.
S/O. PATEL BASAVALINGAPPA,
OCC. SECRETARY, SHUBODAYA SEVA SAMSTHE ®
R/O. NO.3059, SHIVA SHANAKARA 8TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, MCC 'B' BLOCK, DAVANGERE-577004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GURUDEV I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-1.
2. THE SECRETARY AND CEO
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND,
DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 029.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
3. THE JOINT SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
ITI COMPOUND DIARY CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M. R. C. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19-12-2025 BEARING
NO.KBOCWWB/MMU/CR-14/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS. B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER FOR COSTS MAY KINDLY BE PASSED
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.100128 OF 2026
BETWEEN
HASTAKALA, THE RURAL HANDICRAFTS
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION A SOCIETY
REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HIREBUDNUR, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA KAMATAGI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. SECRETARY,
HASTAKALA, THE RURAL HANDICRAFTS
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,
R/O. VANNUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MANJUNATH PUNDALIK HANCHATE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-1.
2. THE SECRETARY AND CEO
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND,
DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560029.
3. THE JOINT SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND
OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND,
DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M. R. C. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19-12-2025 BEARING
NO.KBOCWWB/MMU/CR-14/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS. B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER FOR COSTS MAY KINDLY BE PASSED IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.100133 OF 2026
BETWEEN
ADVISIDDESHWAR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY ®
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT PLOT NO.2022, GANESH CIRCLE, RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
BUDA LAYOUT, BELAGAVI-590 016,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI. UDAY S/O. BASANGOUDA SHIDAGOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT,
ADVISIDDESHWAR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,
R/O. PLOT NO.2022, GANESH CIRCLE, RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
BUDA LAYOUT, BELAGAVI-590 016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ARAVIND DODDABASAPPA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-1.
2. THE SECRETARY AND CEO
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
ITI COMPOUND, DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560029.
3. THE JOINT SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
ITI COMPOUND DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M. R. C. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19-12-2025 BEARING
NO.KBOCWWB/MMU/CR-14/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS. B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER FOR COSTS MAY KINDLY BE PASSED IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.100134 OF 2026
BETWEEN
SAHAYADRI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SOCIETY (SCODWES)
A REGISTERED SOCIETY REGISTERED
UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NEAR HIGHER PRIMARY
SCHOOL PUTTANAMANE ROAD, MARATIKOPPA SIRSI,
DIST. NORTH KANNADA - 581401,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DR. VENKATESH NAIK S/O. LAMBODHAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SAHAYADRI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT SOCIETY (SCODWES),
R/O. SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
...PETITIONER
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHASHANT S.CHATNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-1.
2. THE SECRETARY AND CEO,
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND,
DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. THE JOINT SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND,
DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M. R. C. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19-12-2025 BEARING
NO.KBOCWWB/MMU/CR-14/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS. B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER FOR COSTS MAY KINDLY BE PASSED IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.100135 OF 2026
BETWEEN
UNITED SOCIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION BELAGAVI,
PLOT NO.2436, SECTOR NO.12, MAHANTESH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590 017, A SOCIETY REGISTERED
UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT SRI. B.O. THIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O. BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GURUDEV I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-1.
2. THE SECRETARY AND CEO
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
ITI COMPOUND, DIARY CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. THE JOINT SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND,
DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M. R. C. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 19-12-2025 BEARING
NO.KBOCWWB/MMU/CR-14/2025-26 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS. B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER FOR COSTS MAY KINDLY BE PASSED IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 03.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging
the tender notification dated 19.12.2025 issued by
respondent No.3.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these
petitions are as follows:
2.1. The petitioners are engaged in a public health
and allied welfare activities. The petitioners have
consistently participated in and executed several
Government and public sector projects, particularly in the
healthcare sector, and established a proven tract record of
competence, reliability and efficiency. Respondent No.3
had floated a tender commissioning, operating and
managing seven Smart Mobile Medical Units ('MMUs' for
short) in 2022 with certain conditions. The earlier tender
has worked out effectively with the conditions imposed
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
therein. Respondent No.3 issued a fresh tender
notification vide Annexure-D dated 19.12.2025 prescribing
drastically altered, onerous and exclusionary eligibility
conditions, including exorbitant financial turnover
requirements, prior execution of high value work order,
rigid KPME registration stipulations, and pre-existing
manpower conditions. These conditions were absent in
the earlier tender regime and bear no rational nexus to the
object of providing MMU healthcare services. The abrupt
modification of eligibility criteria is wholly unjustified,
especially when the earlier tender regime was
demonstrably effective and the services rendered
thereunder were certified as satisfactory and there has
been no grievance from the beneficiary labour class
warranting such drastic changes. The impugned
conditions effectively exclude the petitioners and similarly
situated competent service providers, while favouring a
select few, thereby vitiating fair competition. The
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
impugned tender conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory,
tailor-made and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. They are also contrary to the object and
mandate of the Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Act, 1999 ('KTPP Act' for short), which
requires fairness, transparency, non-discrimination and a
level playing field in public procurement. Hence, these
petitions.
2.2. The petitioners in connected petitions have also
challenged the same tender notification dated 19.12.2025
and accordingly, pray to allow the petitions.
3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a statement of
objections contending that, the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners are illegal, arbitrary and not maintainable
under the law. It is contended that, respondent Nos.2 and
3 are the Karnataka Building and Other Construction
Workers' Welfare Board and is constituted under the
provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workers
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
(Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Services)
Act, 1996 ('BOCW Act' for short) and Karnataka Rules,
2006. The Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 and the
Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess
Rules, 1998 have been promulgated for funding the social
security benefits to be provided to BOC workers as
contemplated under Section 22 of the BOCW Act. In
terms of Section 3 of the Building and Other Construction
Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, cess at 1% of the cost of
construction is collected. One of the welfare schemes for
registered construction worker and their dependants is
regular health check-up at their work places. Hence, the
KBOCWW Board intends to appoint an agency for setting
up and managing the mobile health clinic units for
construction workers and their dependants on a
2-year contract basis, extendable thereafter for 3 years
one year at a time based on the performance. One of the
scheme being implemented by the Board is the MMU. It is
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
a modified vehicle which visits work sites and workers'
colonies and provides medical treatment to the registered
beneficiaries and their dependents. For the first time
during 2020-21, 10 MMUs were set up. Out of 10 MMUs,
the agency for setting up the 3 were selected through
tender process. In respect of 7 MMUs, the agency for
setting up the MMU was selected under Section 4A of the
KTPP Act. The details of the same is extracted in
paragraph No.5 of the statement of objections, which is
reproduced as follows:
Mode of
Sl. No. of Selection Date of
Region Agency
No. MMUs of Work Order
Agency
1 Belagavi 03 SCODWES Tender 01-10-2021
2 Kalburgi 01 SCODWES Sec.4(a) 4-3-2022
of KTPP
Act
3 Bengaluru-01 02 Udbhav Sec.4(a) 04-03-2022
Educational & of KTPP
Rural Act
Development
Society
4 Bengaluru-02 02 SCODWES Sec.4(a) 16-02-2022
of KTPP
Act
5 Hassan 02 Blossom Sec.4(a) 12-01-2022
Charitable Trust of KTPP
Act
Total 10
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
During 2020-21, 25 MMUs were set up. Out of 25 MMUs, 7
units were selected through tender process. In respect of
18 MMUs, the agency for setting up MMUs was selected
under Section 4A of the KTPP Act, the details of the same
is extracted in paragraph No.6 of the statement of
objections, which is reproduced as follows:
Mode of
Sl. No. of Selection Date of
Region Agency
No. MMUs of Work Order
Agency
1 Kalburgi 07 UNITED Tender 04-03-2022
2 Belagavi 07 SCODWES Sec.4 (a) 19-04-2022
of KTPP
Act
3 Bengaluru-01 03 Udbhav Sec.4 (a) 27-06-2022
Educational & of KTPP
Rural Act
Development
Society
4 Bengaluru-02 04 SCODWES Sec.4 (a) 19-04-2022
of KTPP
Act
5 Hassan 04 Blossom Sec.4 (a) 27-03-2022
Charitable Trust of KTPP
Act
Total 25
The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka in his budget
speech for 2022-23 announced the setting up of 100
MMUs during 2022-23. In furtherance of the said
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
announcement, 41 e-tenders were floated for
implementing the programme. 41 e-tenders were called
according to the sub-divisions of the Labour Department.
It is submitted that, a sum of ₹132.40 Crores was
earmarked in the budget of the Board for 2022-23.
Respondent No.2, in one project with common objective
had invited the general public for selection of an agency
for commissioning, operating and managing smart Mobile
Clinic Units in jurisdiction of all 41 Labour Officer
Sub-division in Karnataka State, which was published as
an e-tender in the website of Karnataka Government in
2022. The respondent called for 41 tenders for common
objectives and common services in all districts, bearing
different tender numbers. Respondent No.3 issued tender
book which comprise of 52 pages along with introductory
objects for the purpose of the benefit of building and other
construction works. E-tender Scrutiny Committee of the
Board held the meeting on 08.12.2022 and decided to
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
cancel the tender to revise and revamp the scheme and
adopt a workable model to facilitate the workers.
Accordingly, on 13.12.2022, all 41 e-tenders were
cancelled in the portal. The decision of the e-tender
scrutiny committee of the Board was retrospectively
ratified by the Board during its 38th Board Meeting.
Further, to implement the programme, a proposal was
sent by the respondent to the Government seeking
approval of the State Cabinet vide communication dated
13.12.2022. Accordingly, the State Cabinet approved the
same on 22.12.2022 and also gave administrative
approval for setting up of 100 numbers of Hi-tech mobile
health clinic at the cost of ₹129 Crores. On 07.01.2023,
the approval of the Chairman, State Pre-Tender Scrutiny
Committee was sought for calling e-tender for
implementing the projects. The State Pre-Tender Scrutiny
Committee, after scrutinising the documents, vide its letter
dated 25.01.2023, gave approval for calling 3 separate e-
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
tenders for setting up of mobile health clinics. Subsequent
to the letter dated 25.01.2023, for implementing the
project, respondent No.3 has invited e-tender in the
following manner; first e-tender was invited for the
purchase of vehicles, second e-tender was invited for
purchase of medical equipments, and third e-tender was
invited for the maintenance of the clinic with manpower.
Accordingly, 3 e-tenders were invited by the respondents.
The cancellation of 41 e-tenders called were challenged
before this Court in WP No.2648 of 2023 and the writ
petition came to be rejected. It is contented that, the
tender validity had already expired by the time the
decision was given by this Court. Fresh e-tenders were
invited in March 2024 for setting up of 100 MMUs as
follows:
a. Procurement of 100 vehicles - 02.03.2024.
b. Installation of medical equipment - 12.03.2024.
c. Operation of the 100 MMUs - 07.03.2024.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
After completing the tender process, 100 high-tech MMUs
were set up by the Board and are now functioning
throughout the State. 100 vehicles are completely
different from 35 MMU vehicles withdrawn. The entire
treatment process in the 35 vehicles were manual, the
medical equipments within the MMU vehicles were
manually used, the vehicles were also smaller in size. 100
MMU vehicles are bigger in size, 25 medical devices and 5
lab machines have been installed in the vehicles. They are
digitally interconnected, creating a health ecosystem. The
whole process of registering the beneficiary, conducting
the medical readings and generation of reports is
completely digitalised. The entire process of the
movement of vehicles is monitored through a central
command centre which is set up in the office of the Board.
35 vehicles were withdrawn on 31.03.2025. Due
administrative approvals have been taken for inviting a
fresh tender to refurbish and convert the 35 MMUs on par
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
with the existing 100 MMUs. 3 tenders were floated on
05.11.2025, 11.11.2025 and 19.12.2025 respectively.
Tender notification dated 19.12.2025 is challenged in
these petitions for selection of agencies for the operation
and maintenance of the MMUs. The writ petitions filed by
the petitioners are not maintainable. Hence, on these
grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petitions.
4. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel
Sri. Ashok Haranahalli for the petitioners, learned AGA for
the respondent-State and learned Senior Counsel
Sri. M.R.C.Ravi for the respondents.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the conditions imposed by the respondents
in the tender notification regarding the registration under
the provisions of the Karnataka Private Medical
Establishment Act, 2007 ('KPME Act' for short) is not
applicable. He submits that, as per the definition, 'private
medical establishment' means a hospital or dispensary
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
with beds or without beds. He submits that, the MMUs do
not fall within the definition of private medical
establishment. Hence, there is no need to register the
establishment. He submits that, the eligibility conditions
imposed in the impugned tender such as minimum
average annual turnover of ₹29.4 Crores, completion of
work order of ₹1.75 Crores, compulsory KPME registration
for 3 years with Level-2 categorisation and prior
engagement of 35 medical/paramedical staff for 1 year
have no rational nexus with the object of providing mobile
healthcare services through MMUs. The tender conditions
must bear a reasonable nexus to the purpose of the
contract, and where such conditions are arbitrary or
intended to favour a particular bidder; judicial interference
is warranted. He submits that, the impugned eligibility
conditions unmistakably indicate that they are tailor-made
to suit a pre-identified bidder or a select class of bidders,
thereby eliminating a fair competition. Such conduct
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
amounts to colourable exercise of power, vitiating the
tender process at its inception. He submits that, the
impugned tender notification is in clear derogation of the
object, scheme and mandate of the KTPP Act, which aims
to promote transparency, fairness, accountability and
competition in public procurement. He submits that,
insisting a registration of establishment under the KPME
Act is arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to allow the writ petitions.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents submits that, the writ petition is not
maintainable. He submits that, in an identical matter, the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ambika
S. Patil Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another1,
dismissed the writ petition upholding the conditions
mentioned in the tender notification and he further
submits that, one of the eligibility conditions and criteria
1
WP No.201957 of 2025, disposed of on 07.11.2025
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
for applying the tender is that the establishment must be
registered under the KPME Act and if the establishment is
not registered under the KPME Act, the bidders are not
eligible for the said tender. He submits that, it is not for
the Court to say whether the conditions prescribed in the
tender under consideration were better than one
prescribed in the earlier tender invitation. He further
submits that, the respondents have invited the earlier
tender notification prescribing the same conditions. He
submits that, the petitioners did not challenge the earlier
tender notifications alleging that the conditions mentioned
in the tender notifications are arbitrary and erroneous. He
further submits that, the approximate cost of the tender is
₹14.70 Crores for 1 year contract period and he submits
that, some of the petitioners, having participated in the
tender process, have no right to challenge the tender
notification. To buttress his arguments, he has placed a
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
case of Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai
Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST)
and Others2. He submits that, while invoking the power
of judicial review in the matters as to the tenders or award
of contracts, certain special features should be borne in
the mind that evaluation of the tenders and award of
contracts are essentially commercial functions, and
principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in
such matters. He submits that, the issue involved in this
case is already decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Dr. Ambika S. Patil (supra). Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions.
7. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is undisputed that, the respondents issued
similar notifications earlier with similar clauses and
conditions. None of the petitioners have challenged the
2
(2023) 19 SCC 1
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
earlier tender notifications. As per the impugned tender
notification, the details and description of the tender are
as follows:
S Description
No
1 Mode of Bid Online through e-procurement
Submission portal at http://e-
proc.karnataka.gov.in
2 Type of proposal Three Bid System Pre-
required Qualification, Technical Bid
and Financial Bid
3 Date, time and Date: 29-12-2025 at 11:30
venue of Pre-bid Hrs 1st Floor, Kalyana
meeting Suraksha Bhavan,
Bannerghatta Road, 560029.
ITI Compound, Dairy Circle,
Bengaluru -
4 Last date of receipt 29-12-2025 up to 17:00 Hrs
of Pre- bid queries
5 Last date of 12-01-2026 up to 17:00 Hrs
submission of
proposal
6 Date of opening of 13-01-2026 up to 12:01 Hrs
Pre- Qualification
Bid
7 Date of opening of On completion of Pre-
technical proposal Qualification Bid
8 Date & time of Bidders who qualify in Pre-
Presentation By Qualification stage will be
Bidders intimated for Presentation by
the KBOCWWB
9 Opening of financial On completion of technical
bids evaluation
10 Validity of the 180 days
Proposal
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
From the perusal of the tender notification, pre-bid
meeting was held on 29.12.2025; last date of receipt of
pre-bid queries - 29.12.2025; last date of submission of
proposal - 12.01.2026; date of opening of pre-qualification
bid - 13.01.2026; date of opening of technical proposal -
on completion of pre-qualification bid; date and time of
presentation by bidders - bidders who qualify in
pre-qualification stage will be intimated for presentation
by the KBOCWWB; opening of financial bids - on
completion of technical evaluation; validity of the proposal
- 180 days. Some of the petitioners have participated in
the pre-bid meeting. However, they have not raised any
objection regarding the tender conditions. Some of the
petitioners approached this Court challenging the
cancellation of the tender dated 14.12.2022 in WP No.
2648 of 2023. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
rejected the petition on the ground that a fresh tender
notification is issued/to be issued. The interjection by the
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
court has led the respondent not to move further as an
interim order is operating and a liberty was reserved in
favour of the petitioners therein to participate in the fresh
tenders issued or to be issued by the respondents. If the
tender is issued or to be issued, it is for the respondents
to take to its logical conclusion. Pursuant to the disposal of
the said writ petition, the impugned tender notification is
issued. The impugned tender notification pre-qualification
criteria is fixed, i.e., clause No.2, which is reproduced as
follows:
Pre-Qualification/Eligibility criteria
Sr. Criteria Documents to be
No. Submitted
1 xx xx xx xx
2 The Bidder should have a Audited Balance sheet and
minimum Average Financial Profit & Loss account
turnover of at least statement of the Applicant
Rs.29.40 crores in the for each of the last 3
preceding 3 financial years audited financial years (FY
(2022-23, 2023-24 & 2022-23, 2023-24 & 2024-
2024-25). 25). CA Certificate for
turnover for last three
financial years (with UDIN
No).
3 xx xx Xx xx
4 The bidder should be KPME Registration
registered with KPME and Certificate should be
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
the same shall be displayed uploaded or equivalent
on KPME Website for certificate from other State
minimum 3 years with should be uploaded.
atleast level 2
Categorization.
5 The bidder should have HR of the organization
engaged at least 35 certified Salary Statement
medical and paramedical of preceding 3 months (i.e.,
staffs on their payroll for JULY 2025, AUG 2025 & SEP
the past 1 year 2025)
From the perusal of pre-qualification criteria, it is discloses
that, the bidder should have a minimum average financial
turnover of at least ₹29.4 Crores in the preceding 3
financial years (2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25), and the
bidder should submit audited balance sheet and profit and
loss account statement and a CA certificate for turnover
for at least last 3 financial years and also the bidder
should be registered with KPME and the same shall be
displayed on KPME website for minimum 3 years with at
least level 2 categorization and the documents to be
submitted includes KPME registration certificate, which
should be uploaded or equivalent certificate from other
State should be uploaded; The bidder should have
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
engaged at least 35 medical and paramedical staffs on
their payroll for the past 1 year and the HR of the
organization certified the salary statement of preceding 3
months (i.e., July 2025, August 2025 and September
2025) have to be submitted. The petitioners have
challenged these 3 conditions and also the technical
qualification criteria that the Evaluation Committee
feels that some parameters are critical for the success
of a project of the said nature, and the bidders to
provide accurate and precise information in their
responses and in marks to be awarded. The details
of the technical qualification criteria is extracted as
follows:
Sl.
Min Max
No Eligibility Criteria Quantum
Marks Marks
.
1 The firm should be in 3 years
existence for at least 3 years and up to 10
having a valid registration 5 years 15
certificate. Above 5
15
years
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
2 The bidder should have 1.75
successfully provided medical Crores
services through Medical and up to 20
camps/ Preventive Health 5.00
Checkups in mass level with Crores
atleast 15000
patients/beneficiaries OR
operated and managed
25
atleast 15 MMUs; for any
State Govt/ Central Govt
Departments/ Boards/ Govt.
Over 5.00
Organizations in the last 3 25
Crores
years (FY 2022-23, 2023-24
& 2024-25) and a single
Workorder value of minimum
Rs.1.75 Crores should be
completed.
3 The Bidder should have a Rs. 29.40
minimum Average Financial crores and
turnover of at least Rs.29.40 upto 20
crores in the preceding 3 Rs.40.00
financial years (2022-23, crores
2023-24 & 2024-25). Over
Rs.40.00
crores and 30
25
up to
Rs.50.00
crores
Over
Rs.50.00
30
crores
4 The bidder should have 75 Staff
engaged at least 35 medical and up to 5
and paramedical staffs on 75 Staff
10
their payroll for the past 1
Above 75
year. 10
Staff
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
5 Methodology and Approach Presentati
10
for overall implementation of on
projects. A presentation in the
Methodolo 20
form of colour printout should
gy and 10
be submitted along with the
Approach
bid.
TOTAL MARKS 100
PASS MARKS 65
The petitioners contend that, the conditions are arbitrary.
To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine
the provisions of the KPME Act. Sections 3 to 6, 11A and
18 of the KPME Act are reproduced as follows:
"3. Registration of Private Medical
Establishments.- On and after the appointed day, no
Private Medical Establishment shall be established, run or
maintained in the State except under and in accordance
with the terms and conditions of registration granted
under this Act:
Provided that a Private Medical Establishment in
existence immediately prior to the appointed day shall
apply for such registration within six months from the
date of commencement of the Karnataka Private Medical
Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2012 and pending
orders thereon may continue to run or maintain till the
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
disposal of the application. 3[and shall comply with the
provisions of this Act.
4. Registration and Grievance Redressal
Authority.- There shall be a Registration and Grievance
Redressal Authority in each district consisting of the
following members nominated in such manner with such
qualification as may be prescribed, namely:-
a) The Deputy Commissioner of Chairman
the District
(b) District Health and Family Member
Welfare Officer Secretary
(c) District AYUSH Officer Member
(d) One member each from Indian Members
Medical Association and one
more association
(e) One woman representative Member
when the Authority is dealing
with a grievance redressal.
5. Application for Registration.- (1) Every
person desiring to establish, run, maintain or continue to
run and maintain a Private Medical Establishment shall
make an application to the concerned 1[Registration and
Grievance Redressal Authority]1 in such form, in such
manner and along with such fees as may be prescribed
and different amount of fees may be prescribed, for
different class or classes of Private Medical
Establishments.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
6. Pre-requisites for Registration of Private
Medical Establishments.- The Registration and
Grievance Redressal Authority shall before granting the
registration consider whether the following prerequisites
for registration of a Private Medical Establishment are
satisfied, namely:-
(i) that the premises housing the Private Medical
Establishment is located in hygienic
surroundings and otherwise suitable for the
purpose for which it is established or sought
to be established;
(ii) that the Private Medical Establishment is
adequately staffed with qualified doctors,
qualified and trained para medical personnel;
(iii) that the Private Medical Establishment has the
necessary buildings with adequate space for
performing its various functions, equipments
and other infrastructure facilities;
(iv) that the Private Medical Establishment conforms
to the standards referred to in section 9;
(v) such other factors as may be prescribed.
Provided that no new Private Clinical Laboratory
shall be permitted within a radius of 200 meters from the
Government Hospital or from the Hospital promoted or
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
managed by a society or trust or autonomous
organization owned or controlled by the State
Government or Central Government or Local Bodies with
effect from the date of commencement of the Karnataka
Private Medical Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2017."
"11A. Patient's Charter and Private Medical
Establishment's Charter.- (1) Every patient or
authorized family member and Private Medical
Establishment shall have the rights and duties specified in
the Patient's and Private Medical Establishment's Charter
as contained in the Schedule to the Act. (2) Every patient
or authorized family member and Private Medical
Establishment shall have right to make complaint to the
Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority in respect
of violation of any of the provisions of sub-section (1) or
rules made under the Act in such manner as may be
prescribed."
"18. Private Medical Establishments to report
the names of government doctors on their
establishments.- Every Private Medical Establishment
shall report to the State Government and the Registration
and Grievance Redressal Authority, the names of
government doctors and para medical staff, whose
services are utilized in the Private Medical Establishment
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
for consultations or any other basis whether on payment
basis or not."
From the perusal of Section 3 of the KPME Act, it provides
that registration of a private medical establishment is
mandatory, and it requires registration. Section 4
provides registration and grievance redressal authority.
Section 5 provides that every person desiring to establish
a private medical establishment shall make an application
to the concerned Registration and Grievance Reversal
Authority in such a form, in such a manner along with
such fees as prescribed. Section 6 provides pre-requisites
for registration of private medical establishments i.e., to
establish a private medical establishment, it must be
established that, the premises housing the private medical
establishment located in hygienic surroundings, is
adequately staffed with the qualified doctors, qualified and
trained para medical personnel and it has adequate space
for its various functions, equipments and other
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
infrastructure facilities and the establishment conforms to
the standards referred to in Section 9. Section 9 provides
that every paramedical establishment shall conform to the
standards of staffing pattern and infrastructure. Section
11A provides that every patient or authorized family
member and private medical establishment shall have the
rights and duties specified in the patient's and private
medical establishment's charter as contained in the
schedule to the Act.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata
Motors Limited (supra), has held in paragraph Nos. 54 to
58 as follows:
"54. We are of the view that the High Court should
have been a bit slow and circumspect in reversing the
action of BEST permitting EVEY to submit a revised
Annexure Y. We are of the view that BEST committed no
error or cannot be held guilty of favouritism, etc. in
allowing EVEY to submit a revised Annexure Y as the
earlier one was incorrect on account of a clerical error.
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
This exercise itself was not sufficient to declare the entire
bid offered by EVEY as unlawful or illegal.
55. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from
imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as
to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless
something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The
court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to
tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender
process at the stage when the contract is well underway,
would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender
process at this stage may consume lot of time and also
loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of
rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public
exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the
Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one
of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind.
This is evident from a three-Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India
[Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India, (2005) 1
SCC 679] .
56. The law relating to award of contract by the
State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air
India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. [Air India
Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC
617] and it was held that the award of a contract,
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a
commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to
arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation
for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such
a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the
public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some
defect is found in the decision-making process, the court
must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226
with great caution and should exercise it only in
furtherance of public interest and not merely on the
making out of a legal point. The court should always keep
the larger public interest in mind in order to decide
whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it
comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest
requires interference, the court should interfere.
57. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007)
14 SCC 517] , that while invoking power of judicial review
in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain
special features should be borne in mind that evaluations
of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially
commercial functions and principles of equity and natural
justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision
relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public
interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in
assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out.
Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect
private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide
contractual disputes.
58. In such circumstances referred to above, we set
aside that part of the judgment and order [Tata Motors
Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11618] passed by
the High Court by which the decision of BEST to accept
the tender of EVEY was set aside and it was left to the
discretion of BEST to undertake a fresh tender process."
(Emphasis supplied)
From the perusal of the judgment in the case of Tata
Motors Limited (supra), it discloses that, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that, in the matters as to the tenders or
award of a contracts, certain special features should be
borne in the mind that evaluations of tenders and
awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions
and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a
distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
of a contract is bona fide and is in the public interest,
Courts will not interfere by exercising power of judicial
review even if a procedural aberration or error in
assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power
of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private
interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide
contractual disputes. Admittedly, the impugned tender
issued by the respondents is in the public interest and
awarding of contract is a commercial function. Hence, the
petitioners are trying to invoke judicial review to protect
their interest at the cost of public.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
N.G.Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and
Others3, has held in paragraph Nos.21 and 23 as follows:
"21. Since the construction of road is an
infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of
the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be
stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to
3
(2022) 6 SCC 127
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure
project. Such provision should be kept in view even by
the writ court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
22. xx xx
23. In view of the above judgments of this Court,
the writ court should refrain itself from imposing its
decision over the decision of the employer as to whether
or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not
have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions
of the present day economic activities of the State and
this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be
even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving
technical issues as there is a requirement of the
necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The
approach of the Court should be not to find fault with
magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should
examine as to whether the decision-making process is
after complying with the procedure contemplated by the
tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total
arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a
mala fide manner, still the Court should refrain from
interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the
parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather
than to injunct the execution of the contract. The
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional
costs on the State and is also against public interest.
Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by
paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived
of the infrastructure for which the present day
Governments are expected to work."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagadish
Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Others4, in paragraph
No.28, held as follows:
"28. The limited scope of judicial review by the High
Court envisaged examination of the question whether
there was any material irregularity in the decision-making
process or whether the decision of the Committee and
consequential rejection of fifth respondent's tender was
irrational, unreasonable or arbitrary. The validity of the
decision of the Committee taken on the material available
at the time of consideration of tenders, cannot be tested
with reference to a subsequent police enquiry report
submitted in the writ proceedings. Nor can it be held that
the Committee acted arbitrarily in not accepting the
passbook, on the basis of some report opining that the TD
passbook is genuine. The High Court was not sitting in
4
(2007) 14 SCC 517
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
appeal over the decision of the Committee. The High
Court could not, therefore, by relying on a subsequent
police enquiry report, the correctness of which is yet to
be established, hold that the Tender Committee was
wrong in rejecting the TD passbook. Further, the High
Court missed the issue. The question for consideration
was not whether the TD passbook pledged by the fifth
respondent is genuine or not. The question for
consideration was whether the Committee acted
arbitrarily or irrationally in rejecting the said TD
passbook."
In paragraph No.31 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that, the High Court exceeded its
power of judicial review in interfering with the contracts.
12. From the perusal of the records, it clearly
discloses that the Government has issued the impugned
tender with the object of promotion and monitoring of
private medical establishments in the State of Karnataka
and to expedite in the public interest to promote the
quality healthcare and monitor by law the running of
private medical establishments in the State by stipulating
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
the minimum standards for quality of service in keeping
with the principles of medical ethics. The patient has a
right to receive the treatment irrespective of the type of
primary and associated illness, socio-economic status,
age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, caste, cultural
preferences, linguistic and geographical origins or political
affiliations, and every patient has a right to receive
treatment from the private medical establishments. The
private medical establishment administers necessary first
aid and takes other life-saving or stabilizing emergency
measures in all medico-legal or potentially medico-legal
cases, such as victims of road accidents, accidental or
induced burns or poisoning or criminal assaults and the
like, which present themselves. The PME shall actively
participate in the implementation of all the national and
State health programmes in such a manner as the State
Government may specify from time to time, and furnish
periodical reports thereon to the concerned authorities.
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
13. The conditions imposed in the impugned tender
notification is in the interest of public and the said tender
involves technical issues. As there is a requirement of
necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues, this
Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the
conditions imposed by the respondents in the impugned
tender notification.
14. In the case of Dr. Ambika S. Patil (supra), the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considering the entire
conditions in a similar tender notification, held that, the
purpose of imposing the condition is to select an agency
which is competent and capable of implementing the
scheme effectively. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in
an identical notification imposing similar conditions, has
declined to entertain the writ petition. The Co-ordinate
Bench has also referred to the decision relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel in the case of Vinishma
Technologies Private Lts. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
and Another5, has in paragraph No.18 held that, the said
judgment is of no avail in as much as the issue fell for
consideration in the said case was with reference to a
tender condition. The issue involved in this case is
squarely covered by the issue involved in the case of Dr.
Ambika S. Patil (supra).
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.Kasi Vs.
State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur
Police Station, Madurai District6 has held that the
judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench has a binding
effect on latter bench. Paragraph Nos.31 and 32 which are
relevant, are extracted below:
"31. Learned single judge in the impugned
judgment has taken a contrary view to the earlier
judgment of learned single judge in Settu v. The State
(supra). It is well settled that a coordinate bench cannot
take a contrary view and in event here was any doubt, a
5
SLP (C) No.24075 of 2025, decided on 06.10.2025
6
Crl.Appeal No.452 of 2020, disposed of on 19.06.2020
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
coordinate bench only can refer the matter for
consideration by a Larger Bench. The judicial discipline
ordains so. This Court in State of Punjab and another v.
Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. And another (2004) 11
SCC 26, in paragraph 339 laid down following :-
"339. Judicial discipline envisages that a
coordinate bench follow the decision of an earlier
coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not
agree with the principles of law enunciated by
another Bench, the matter may be referred only to
a larger Bench. (See Pradip Chandra Parija v.
Pramod Chandra Patnaik, (2002) 1 SCC 1 Devi,
(2002) 7 SCC 273. But no decision can be arrived
at contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down
by the coordinate Bench. Kalyani Stores (supra)
and K.K.Narula (supra) both have been rendered by
the Constitution Benches. The said decisions,
therefore, cannot be thrown out for any purpose
whatsoever; more so when both of them if applied
collectively lead to a contrary decision proposed by
the majority"
32. Learned Single Judge did not follow the judicial
discipline while taking a contrary and diagonally opposite
view to one which have been taken by another learned
Single Judge in Settu versus The State (Supra). The
contrary view taken by learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment is not only erroneous but also sends
wrong signals to the State and the prosecution
emboldening them to act in breach of liberty of a person."
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4140
WP No. 100122 of 2026
C/W WP No. 100126 of 2026
WP No. 100128 of 2026
HC-KAR WP No. 100133 of 2026
WP No. 100134 of 2026
WP No. 100135 of 2026
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of S.Kasi (supra), and to maintain the judicial
discipline that envisages that a Co-ordinate Bench follows
the decision of an earlier Co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, I
respectfully concur with the exposition of the decision
passed in the case of Dr. Ambika S. Patil (supra). Hence,
the clauses of the impugned e-tender notification are
neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and the respondent-
Board is justified in imposing such conditions regarding the
technical qualification criteria.
16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petitions are dismissed; ii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
SD/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA | CT: UMD | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71