- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10615 WP No. 2308 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2308 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SURESH S. MUGULI, S/O SHANKAR, AGED 53 YEARS R/AT HATTARWAT, CHIKKODI, BELAGAVI - 591 226. 2. M.M. GHODGERI, S/O MOHD. GOUSE, AGED 71 YEARS, R/AT VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, GOKAK, BELAGAVI - 591 307. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.18, GROUND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VIDHI, BANGALORE - 01, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10615 WP No. 2308 of 2025 SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, KARNATAKA SAHAKAR MARATHA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SRI. TRADING COMPANY, BY PROPRIETOR SUBHASH HARISH PATIL, PLOT NO.344, BAUXITE ROAD, HANUMAN NAGAR, TV CENTER, BELAGAVI - 590 019, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNED. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHU V, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 24.01.2025 VIDE ANNX-F, F1, F2 AND F3 WITHIN THE TIME FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representations, all dated 24.01.2025 and declaring - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10615 WP No. 2308 of 2025 that respondent No.3 is disqualified from participating in the tender process and further to declare that respondent No.3 is not entitled to receive any work orders in the subject tender notification dated 13.08.2024. 2. Heard Shri P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel for Shri Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Spoorthi V., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Sridhar Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioners claim to be in the business of supply of food grains and further claims to have participated in the tenders issued by the State at different districts. Respondent No.3, a trading company also finding itself eligible, applies for tender along with the petitioners. The notice inviting tender was issued on 13.08.2024, after which a corrigendum is said to have been issued, which depicts that the last date of submission of tenders in terms of the tender notification dated 13.08.2024 was 06.09.2024, to begin the submission of bids. The last date of submission of bids was 19.09.2024. Therefore, the entire issue in the lis revolves round the conditions of the tender. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10615 WP No. 2308 of 2025 4. The learned Senior counsel takes this Court through the tender documents to demonstrate that respondent No.3 was disqualified from even applying pursuant to the tender notified on the sole score that he was a commission agent at the APMC. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that if respondent No.3 was disqualified, it is only the petitioners, who emerge as eligible for award of contract. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader also would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners only insofar as the eligibility of the petitioners to emerge as a successful bidders. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would seek to refute the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in contending that the last date for scrutiny of the application would become relevant in the case at hand. According to him, the technical bid was for after the submission of bid and if the last date of technical bid is taken note of, the license of the APMC of respondent No.3 had been cancelled by then. Therefore, since he has emerged as L-1, the work order should be issued in his favour. He would further - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10615 WP No. 2308 of 2025 submit that though the applications stand cancelled after the last date of submission of bid, he had applied for cancellation long before the last date of the bid i.e., on 11.09.2024, itself. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pursued the material available on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The notice inviting tender is issued on 13.08.2024. The certain clauses of the tender are germane to be noticed. Clause v deals with disqualifications. It reads as follows: "v. The employees of state FCS & CA department, KFCSC Ltd, Central FCS Government, Food Department related agencies and their relatives should not participate in the tender, and also the bidders and their family members should not be owing Fair price depot, APMC foodgrains traders and rice or wheat flour mills. Bidder has to submit the affidavit for the same." Clause ix thereof becomes grabbing of the lis. It reads as follows: "ix. APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) and commission agents are not eligible to participate in Tender." Clauses v and ix disqualifies those tenderers, who are APMC food grain traders or commission agents in the APMC, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10615 WP No. 2308 of 2025 respondent No.3, is necessary to be noticed. Even according to respondent No.3, he was a commission agent. It stands cancelled pursuant to his application on 20.09.2024. The cancellation reads as follows: "ಕೃ ಾಾಟ ಇ ಾ ೆ ಉಪ ೇಶಕರ ಕೇ, ೆಳಾ ೆ, ೕಸ ೇಂದ"#ಾ$ನದ ಹ'(ರ, )*ಾ ನಗರ, ೆಳಾ -590016. Email: ddamdbgmoffice@gmail.com zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ: 0831-2950016. ¸ÀASÉå: PÀȪÀiÁE/G¤¨É/®È¸É£ïß/ 302 /2024-25 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-09-2024. ಪ"ಾಣ ಪvÀæ )"ೕ -ೆ"ೕ.ಂ/ ಕಂಪ, ಾೕಕರು॥ ಸು1ಾಷ ಹೕಶ 3ಾ4ೕಲ, #ಾ॥ ೆಳಾ ಇವೆ ಈ ಕೇ8ಂದ ಮಂಜೂಾದ ವತಕರ ೈಸ>? ಸಂ ೆ@:AMD/DD/BGM/TRL(BGM)/2920/2023-24 Date: 22-01-2024ನುA ಈ ತಷಣBಂದ Cಾೆ ಬರುವಂEೆ ರದುFಪ.ಸ ಾGೆ. ಸದ ಪ"ಾಣ ಪತ"ವH ಸದಯವರ ನಂ' ಅಯ Kೕೆೆ ೕಡ ಾGೆ. ಉಪ ೇಶಕರು, ಕೃ ಾಾಟ ಇ ಾ ೆ, ೆಳಾ ೆ, ೆಳಾ." In the light of the said cancellation, one factor becomes clear that he was a commission agent. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 is that, he has filed an application seeking cancellation on 11.09.2024, itself, which is long before the last date of submission of the bids. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10615 WP No. 2308 of 2025 submission does not merit acceptance, as respondent No.3 has submitted his bid on 06.09.2024, wherein he says that he is not a commission agent anywhere. Having so said, later respondent No.3 coming around and filing an application seeking cancellation would not obviate the misrepresentation of respondent No.3 before the tender inviting authorities. 9. It is trite law that the submission of bids and the rights created to those bidders would crystallize on the last date of filing of the bids, which was on 19.09.2024. The license of respondent No.3 of the APMC still subsisted on 19.09.2024. It stood cancelled only on 20.09.2024. Therefore, with this disqualification, tender documents of respondent No.3 could not have been scrutinized even. Its scrutiny itself is contrary to the tender notification. 10. The submission of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 that what should be taken note of is, clause x of the tender, it is noted only to be rejected as clause x deals with submission of originals pursuant to submission of bid for the purpose of technical evaluation. This would not take respondent No.3 for issuance of a work order. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10615 WP No. 2308 of 2025 11. In that light, the petition deserves to be succeed and the prayer of the petitioners is to be answered in their favour. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 24.01.2025, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iii) In the event, the petitioners are the only tenderers, who are eligible otherwise, work order shall be issued to them. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK