- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34166 OF 2018 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., 1ST FLOOR, VANAVIKASA, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARA, BANGALORE - 560 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M V CHARATI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ESTHURU NARAYANAPPA, MAJOR, ESTHURU VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE VILLAGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 2. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, C.F.C. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. C. MANJUNATH., ADV FOR R2; R1-SRI. ESTHURU NARAYANAPPA., SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 COMMISSION IN CASE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 NO.344/2017 VIDE ORDER DTD:24.5.2018 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 Commission in Case No. 344/2017 vide order dated 24.5.2018 which is produced at ANNEXURE-P to the writ petition. (ii) Issue any other appropriate Writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice." 2. Petitioner had issued a tender on 26.05.2017 for felling of old rubber trees in order to raise new plantation and rubber tree plantation project. Respondent No.1 had bid for the said tender and was declared to be L3. L1 had earlier defaulted and as such, the petitioner has decided not to allow the tender to L1. Thereafter, the petitioner held negotiation with L2 and L3 i.e., respondent No.1, so - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 as to arrive at the best rate that could be derived for the works to be done by the contractor for which the petitioner had to make payment. On negotiation, L2 agreed for Rs.1,299/-, L3 who had agreed for Rs.1,514/- agreed to receive payment of sum of Rs.1,314/- in pursuance to the bid, allotment letter came to be issued to respondent No.1. 3. After the work order was issued, the respondent No.1-L3 approached the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, alleging that the petitioner had prevailed upon respondent No.1 to reduce the amount receivable by respondent No.1. The petitioner had not made reservation of the works in terms of Rule 27A of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000 and as such, there is a violation resulting in respondent No.1 being targeted and as such, the relief was claimed by respondent No.1 to restore the bid amount quoted by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2- Commission considering the complaint which had been filed, had allowed the said application, it is challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 4. Sri.M. V. Charati, learned counsel for the petitioner would firstly submit that the reservation which has been made was in pursuance of notification dated 15.09.2017. The present tender notification has been issued on 26.05.2017, the said notification was not applicable. 5. Insofar as the allotment of the works to respondent No.1 at Rs.1,314/-, he submits that this was the negotiated amount arrived at when L2 had quoted Rs.1,299/-, the respondent No.1 having quoted much higher at Rs.1,514/- the same was negotiated and brought down to Rs.1,314/- in the interest of the public exchequer, since the amounts have to be paid by the petitioner, who is a public body from and out of public funds. Thus, he submits that the Commission would not have any jurisdiction in the matter, the same being a commercial issue relating to a tender notification. After negotiation and having received the work order, respondent No.1 has approached the Commission with a false grievance, which could not have been considered by respondent No.2- Commission. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 6. Sri.A. C. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the Commission would submit that respondent No.1 being a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, the grievance having been raised, the Commission being duty-bound to protect the interest of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community has taken up the matter and passed the necessary orders. Considering that L1 was not awarded the contract and L2 allegedly was not interested in carrying out the work, there was no need for reduction of the amount quoted by L3 i.e., respondent No.1. His submission is also that a reservation was to be made in terms of the notification dated 15.09.2017, which not having been made, the Commission has exercised jurisdiction. 7. Heard Sri.M. V. Charati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A. C. Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 though served but remained unrepresented. 8. A short question that would be required to be considered in the present matter is, whether the Commission could - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 exercise its jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 as regards a commercial transaction. 9. In the present matter it has been pointed out earlier, a tender notification had been issued by the petitioner on 26.05.2017, prior to the notification of reservation has been issued on 15.09.2017. As such, the said notification was not applicable to the tender notification issued by the petitioner, insofar as bids which have been received, though L1 had quoted much lesser due to the default made by L1 earlier. The petitioner was not interested in awarding the works to anyone, thus leaving L2 and L3. L2 had quoted Rs.1,299/- and L3 had quoted Rs.1,514/-. The negotiation that has been held by the petitioner with L2 and L3, when L3 in order to secure the work order had agreed to reduce the amount to Rs.1,314/- in pursuance of which work order was issued. When a price has been agreed upon between the parties after negotiation, the question of respondent No.1 claiming reservation for allotment of work and on claiming that by making use of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 the caste of respondent No.1 the amount has been reduced is completely misconceived as malafide. Respondent No.1 on the face of the records, has sought to abuse the process of the Commission and approach the Commission to get higher payoff and therefore, get benefit by approaching the Commission and the Commission has also unfortunately accepted the said contention and merely because respondent No.1 was belonging to Scheduled Caste community has interfered in the matter and held that the negotiated rate between the petitioner and respondent No.1 could not have been done and the negotiated rate is not justified inasmuch as the same was reduced by Rs.200/- and directed the petitioner to make payment of the said amount of Rs.200/- to respondent No.1. 10. The commission has been established to protect the interest of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe it is required for the Commission to look into the matters properly and address the needs and requirements of such persons rather than permit its process to be abused by commercial litigants like - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 respondent No.1 to achieve commercial objectives of increasing the amounts. 11. The Commission in the present matter has also erred by observing that in terms of the notification dated 15.09.2017 a reservation was to be made for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, which was not applicable when the E-tender notification issued in the present matter was on 26.05.2017, when the said reservation was not applicable. If not for respondent No.1-L3 having agreed to reduce the price to Rs.1,314/-, then no work order would have been issued to respondent No.1, which has not been considered by the Commission. Having taken advantage of issuance of the work order, thereafter respondent No.1 could not have approached the Commission for the relief which have been sought for. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12969 WP No. 34166 of 2018 ii. A writ of certiorari is issued, the impugned order dated 24.05.2018 passed by respondent No.2/Commission in Case No.344/2017 produced at Annexure-P is quashed. iii. Payment if any made in pursuance of the order of the Commission is directed to be refunded with interest at 9% within 90 days of the receipt of this order. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32