- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14962 WP No. 6604 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6766 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6604 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 6766 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) IN WP No. 6604/2025 BETWEEN: M/S. EAGLE ELECTRICALS, KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA - 571 432, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR KARTHIK KUMAR P.B. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVITHA H.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KAVERI BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL) KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14962 WP No. 6604 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6766 of 2025 4. CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) TRANSMISSION ZONE, KPTCL, PRASANANA BHAVANA, GROUND FLOOR, FTS COMPOUND, MYSURU - 570 007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.CEE/TZM/SEE(o)AEE-3/2024-25/SHIFT DATED 12/02/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ETC., IN WP NO. 6766/2025 BETWEEN: M/S. SHIVAJYOTHI ELECTRICALS, SHRAVANA BELAGOLA ROAD, HIRISAVE, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN - 573 124, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SOMASHEKAR H.K. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVITHA H.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KAVERI BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14962 WP No. 6604 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6766 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL) KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) TRANSMISSION ZONE, KPTCL, PRASANANA BHAVANA, GROUND FLOOR, FTS COMPOUND, MYSURU - 570 007. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO CEE/TZM/SEE(0)AEE-3/2024- 25/SHIFT DATED 12/02/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners participates in a tender notified on 21.12.2024. The petitioners are declared as L1. In the interregnum, there is a change in policy, as the Board adopts the circular of the Government with regard to implementation of reservation in all the tenders. Therefore, the Karnataka - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14962 WP No. 6604 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6766 of 2025 Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) takes a decision to withdraw or recall all the tenders that were notified by then at whatever stage they are. There are a few tenders, which were withdrawn in which the letter of intent was pending being issued. Petitioners are one such tenderers. 2. In the light of no right flowing to the petitioners with regard to notification of the petitioners as L1, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the conditions of the circular and therefore, the petition must be permitted to continue the contract by issuance of the work order to the petitioners or the contract to be awarded in favour of the petitioners. 3. Smt. Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is not the petitioners alone, but several tenderers whose tenders where pending at the stage of issuance of letter of intent have all been withdrawn owing to the fact that the reservation policy is to be implemented in every tender. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14962 WP No. 6604 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6766 of 2025 4. In that light, no fault can be found with the recalling of the tender or cancellation of the tender in which the petitioners were declared as L1. It is trite law that mere declaration of L1 would not generate any right upon a tenderer to claim that the tender should be continued and a letter of intent should be issued in favor of the petitioners. If it is altogether a different circumstance, if the tender inviting authority had no reason to recall the tender, and the action was arbitrary, it is not the issue in the case at hand, as close to 22 tenders are recalled, pursuant to the implementation of the reservation policy and its adoption by the corporations. In that light, finding no right of the petitioners being taken away, the petitions stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK