- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7094 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SREE CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY LORRY SERVICE A PROPRIETARY CONCERN B.P.MAHESH S/O LATE B.M.PUTTAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.810, 14TH MAIN ROAD 13TH CROSS, A SECTOR, YELEHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU - 560 064 …PETITIONER (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE COMMITTEE FOR TENDER EVALUATION FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. 5. K.S.VISHWANATH SRI VINAYAKA TRANSPORT NO.12/1, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 16TH CROSS RAMASWAMY LAYOUT LAKKASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 030. 6. H.G.SIDDARAMESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER. NO.129/G2, 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGARA BENGALURU – 560 085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI NAGARAJA N. NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 SRI V.MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE UNDATED AND UNNUMBERED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4 COMMITTEE (IN RESPECT OF BENGALURU NORTH TALUK AND BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK) (ANNX-K). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the undated and unnumbered order passed by the R-4 committee (in respect of Bengaluru North Taluk and Bengaluru South Taluk) (annx-k) in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel for Sri Nagaraja N. Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri V. Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner enters into a partnership agreement with R. Muniraj and establish a firm in the name and style of ‘Sree Aishvarya Rice Industries’. The issue in the lis is not with - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 regard to the firm. The second respondent – Department of Food and Civil Supplies issues a notice inviting tender for transportation of food grains from the specified godowns for a period between 2024 and 2026. The notice inviting tender is issued on 13.08.2024. 4. The petitioner considering himself to be eligible in terms of the tender so notified, submits his bid. The participation of the petitioner was itself objected to by the private respondents. This lead to petitioner knocking at the doors of this Court in W.P.No.29752/2024, before the coordinate bench of this Court. The coordinate bench by this Court by its order dated 24.01.2025 disposed the writ petition issuing certain directions. The offshoot of the said directions, is the fulcrum of the present petition. The reason that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petitioner is, he has been disqualified to participate in the tender as he holds license from the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short ‘the APMC’) to sell food grains, rice or wheat, as the case would be. 5. Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner taking this Court through the documents appended to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 petition would demonstrate that Sub-clause 5 of the Clause (v) prohibits certain persons from participating in the tender and though the petitioner was an holder of an APMC license, there were no activities undertaken. He would submit that the APMC itself has issued an endorsement that the activity of the petitioner in the license is nowhere found. Therefore, it would not be an impediment is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would take support from a document in which the GST of Sri Aishvarya Rice Industries, has been cancelled wayback in the year 2020. On these grounds, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner cannot be held to be ineligible for participation in the tender. 6. Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior council representing respondent No.6 would vehemently contend that the petitioner is the holder of an APMC license as he is a partner with one rice industry, which also has a rice mill and therefore, he was disqualified from even participating in the tender. Learned senior counsel would take this Court through the earlier order to demonstrate that the matter was remitted back only to find out whether the petitioner was eligible or otherwise. The findings, pursuant to the order of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 coordinate bench, is the impugned order. No fault can be found with the order impugned, is the submission of the learned senior counsel. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned senior counsel Sri V. Lakshminarayana, contending that the petitioner was ineligible to participate in the tender owing to the fact that the license of the APMC was subsisting as on the date of submission of the bid. The learned senior counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader both in unison would seek dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 9. A notice inviting tender is issued on 13.08.2024. The fulcrum of the subject lis is Clause 5 of the tender notification. It reads as follows: “5. Disqualifications: Xxxx v. The employees of state FCS & CA department, KFCSC Ltd, Central FCS Government, Food Department related agencies and their relatives - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 should not participate in the tender, and also the bidders and their family members should not be owning Fair price depot, APMC foodgrains traders and rice or wheat flour mills. Bidder has to submit the affidavit for the same.” (Emphasis added) The aforesaid clause directs that tenderers of a particular kind cannot participate in the tender, they are, the employees of the State Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs department or related agencies and their relatives should not participate; the bidders and their family members should not be owning a fair price shop, APMC food grains traders and rice or wheat flour mills would not be eligible for bidding in the tender. The petitioner admittedly did have a license of food grains in the APMC. 10. The contention is that, no activity has taken place in the shop, he has shut the shop, long ago, as the GST itself is cancelled in the year 2020. But nonetheless, the license is still subsisting. The subsistence of the license would clearly debar the petitioner from participating in the tender itself. 11. On the aforesaid score, the technical bid of the petitioner comes to be rejected. Rejection of the technical bid - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 was challenged before the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.29752/2024. The coordinate bench disposes the writ petition by the following order: “4. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No.5 and 6; the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the rejection of the technical bid on the ground that certificate has not issued by the Deputy Commissioner, but it is issued by the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies, is something that would penalize the petitioner for no fault of his. It is relevant to notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S.N. JOSHI & SONS LTD., /vs./NAIR COAL SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS - (2006) 11 SCC 548, where in paragraph No.66, it was held that the Apex Court is not shutting his eyes towards the new principles of judicial review which are being developed. However, having regard to the development of judicial review in the field of public tender, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles which have been summarized in paragraph No.66. Most importantly what is noticeable is that the Apex Court has held that in a tender notification there may the essential conditions and same must be adhered to. On the other hand, there may be certain conditions which may not be so essential for consideration of the tender bids. Therefore, it was held that if there is no power of general relaxation, ordinarily the same shall not be exercised and the principle of strict compliance would be applied where it is possible for all the parties to comply with all such conditions fully. If, however, a deviation is made in relation to all the parties in regard to any of such conditions, ordinarily again a power of relaxation may be held to be existing. It was also held that when a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all the tenderers on their own merits and if it is ultimately found that successful bidders had in fact substantially complied with the purport and object for which essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with. Having regard to the such broad guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court find that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that he had not furnished the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, but he had furnished certificate issued by the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies, is unreasonable and too harsh a decision. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, material is placed before this Court along with this petition to show that the application is filed before the concerned Deputy Commissioner seeking issuance of certificate. However, the Deputy Commissioner has forwarded the same to the Deputy Director and consequently the certificate was issued by the Deputy Director and not the Deputy Commissioner. No fault can be found with the petitioner for a certificate being issued by the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies. 5. However, this Court also finds that the 4th respondent - Committee has not fully considered the objection raised by the other bidders including the respondents No.4 and 5 insofar as the petitioner being a licence holder of the APMC and that he is the owner of rice mill. This aspect of the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 4th respondent - Committee. 6. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that this Court prevented the authorities from finalizing the tender process by issuing interim direction, the respondent authorities should be permitted to proceed to consider the bids offered by all the parties. It is noticeable that these are tender process for transportation of food grains and provisions, which are essential commodities and therefore the process cannot be withheld for a long time. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 - Committee for Tender Evaluation to take a decision as regards the objections raised by respondents No.5 and 6 that the petitioner is a partner in M/s. Aishwarya Rice Industries, which is said to be a licence holder of the APMC and that it has a rice mill. If upon verification it is found that the petitioner indeed is a partner of M/s.Aishwarya Rice Industries and his being partner in the said industry would in any way disqualify the petitioner, more particularly having regard to condition No.5 in paragraph No.5, of part II of the Tender Notification, the 4th respondent shall proceed to pass appropriate orders and proceed to finalise the tender. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 8. Needless to observe that the petitioner may also be given opportunity to place materials to show that he does not incur any disqualification as sought to be contended by the contesting respondents.” (Emphasis supplied) The matter was remitted back to the hands of the tender scrutiny committee to analyse as to whether the petitioner is a partner of Sri Aishvarya Rice Industries, which is said to be the license holder of the APMC and that it has a rice mill. 12. After the disposal of the writ petition, the APMC is said to have issued an endorsement on 19.02.2025. It reads as follows: “ಸಂೆ:ಕೃ ಾಇ:ಕೃಉ ಾಸ:ತು:1498:2024-25, ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.02.2025. ಇವೆ, ಉಪ ೇ"ಶಕರು, ಕೃ% ಾ&ಾಟ ಇ(ಾೆ, ತುಮಕೂರು +(ೆ,, ತುಮಕೂರು. ಾನ&ೇ,. .ಷಯ .ಷಯ .ಷಯ .ಷಯ: 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ತುಮಕೂರು ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಬಟ=ಾ> ಮುಖ ಾರುಕ@ೆA Bಾ2ಂಗಣದF, =ಾBಾರ ವG=ಾಟು ನHೆಸುIJರುವ Kಾಗೂ ಸLIೆ BಾವI8ರುವ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲNದ ಬೆO ಾGI ಸF,ಸುIJರುವ ಕುತು. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 ಉ(ೆ,ೕಖ ಉ(ೆ,ೕಖ ಉ(ೆ,ೕಖ ಉ(ೆ,ೕಖ: ತಮP ಕQೇ ಪತ2 ಸಂೆ: ಕೃ ಾ/ಉ(ತು)/346/2024-25, ¢£ÁAPÀ:03.02.2025. ---- WೕಲNಂಡ .ಷಯPÉÌ ಸಂಬಂX8ದಂತ, ಉ(ೆ,ೕYತ ಪತ2ದF, 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6, ತುಮಕೂರು ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಬಟ=ಾ>, ಮುಖ ಾರುಕ@ೆA Bಾ2ಂಗಣದF,ರುವ ಬೆO, ಸ;ಳ ಪ1ೕಲ[ೆ ಾ> \ೕ@ೋ ಸWೕತ ವರ] ೕಡಲು Kಾಗೂ ಸದ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು =ಾBಾರ ವG=ಾಟು ನHೆ8, ಸLIೆ BಾವI8ರುವ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲNದ ಬೆO .ವರ ೕಡಲು ^ೋರುIJೕ. ಅದರಂ`ೆ ][ಾಂಕ:13.02.2025ರಂದು ಸLIಯ ಬಟ=ಾ>, ಮುಖ ಾರುಕ@ೆA Bಾ2ಂಗಣದ 4[ೇ ಮುಖ ರ:ೆJ, ಎbಎಂ8 cಾd" ಬಟ=ಾ>, ತುಮಕೂರು .eಾಸ^ೆN ಸLIಯF, ಾರುಕ@ೆA WೕF4fಾರಕ&ಾg ಕತ"ವ ವ"GಸುIJರುವ 12ೕ ಮಧುಸೂಧi ^ೆ ಇವರು jೇk ೕ> ಸ;ಳ ಪ1ೕಲನ ನHೆ8ದುl, ಸದ .eಾಸದF, 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ತುಮಕೂರು ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ವವಹಸ ೇ ಇರುವnದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ]ರುವn ಾg Io8ರು`ಾJ&ೆ. ಬದ(ಾg ಸದ ಅಂಗ> ಮoೆಯF, ಲpqೕರಂಗ[ಾಥ ಕಮ%"ಯst, ಾFೕಕರು: ಎಂ.ಆv.=ಾಸುw ಇವರು ವವಹಸುIJದುl, ಸದಯವರನುx .fಾಸ(ಾg, ಸದಯವರು [ಾವn cಾವn ೇ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವೆ =ಾBಾರ ವG=ಾಟು ನHೆಸಲು ಅಂಗ> ಮoೆಯನುx yಾ>ೆೆ ೕ>ರುವn]ಲ, ಎಂಬು ಾg FYತ Kೇo^ೆ ಪತ2ವನುx ೕ>ರು`ಾJ&ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ&ೆದು 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸLIಯ ಮುಖ ಮುಂದುವ&ೆದು 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸLIಯ ಮುಖ ಮುಂದುವ&ೆದು 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸLIಯ ಮುಖ ಮುಂದುವ&ೆದು 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸLIಯ ಮುಖ ಾರುಕ@ೆA Bಾ2ಂಗಣ ಾರುಕ@ೆA Bಾ2ಂಗಣ ಾರುಕ@ೆA Bಾ2ಂಗಣ ಾರುಕ@ೆA Bಾ2ಂಗಣದF, ಅಶ4ತ;[ಾ&ಾಯಣ zೆkA ಅಂd ಸit ದF, ಅಶ4ತ;[ಾ&ಾಯಣ zೆkA ಅಂd ಸit ದF, ಅಶ4ತ;[ಾ&ಾಯಣ zೆkA ಅಂd ಸit ದF, ಅಶ4ತ;[ಾ&ಾಯಣ zೆkA ಅಂd ಸit, , , , ಇವಂದ yಾ>ೆೆ ಇವಂದ yಾ>ೆೆ ಇವಂದ yಾ>ೆೆ ಇವಂದ yಾ>ೆೆ ಪHೆ]ರುವ ಅಂಗ> ಮoೆಯ .eಾಸವನುx ೕ> Bಾಲು ಾ^ೆ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯ> ಖೕ] ಾರರ ಪHೆ]ರುವ ಅಂಗ> ಮoೆಯ .eಾಸವನುx ೕ> Bಾಲು ಾ^ೆ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯ> ಖೕ] ಾರರ ಪHೆ]ರುವ ಅಂಗ> ಮoೆಯ .eಾಸವನುx ೕ> Bಾಲು ಾ^ೆ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯ> ಖೕ] ಾರರ ಪHೆ]ರುವ ಅಂಗ> ಮoೆಯ .eಾಸವನುx ೕ> Bಾಲು ಾ^ೆ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯ> ಖೕ] ಾರರ (ೈಸನtನುx ಮP ಕQೇ{ಂದ ಪHೆ]ರು`ಾJ&ೆ (ೈಸನtನುx ಮP ಕQೇ{ಂದ ಪHೆ]ರು`ಾJ&ೆ (ೈಸನtನುx ಮP ಕQೇ{ಂದ ಪHೆ]ರು`ಾJ&ೆ (ೈಸನtನುx ಮP ಕQೇ{ಂದ ಪHೆ]ರು`ಾJ&ೆ. . . . ಸLI{ಂದ cಾವn ೇ ಪರ=ಾನgಯನುx ಸLI{ಂದ cಾವn ೇ ಪರ=ಾನgಯನುx ಸLI{ಂದ cಾವn ೇ ಪರ=ಾನgಯನುx ಸLI{ಂದ cಾವn ೇ ಪರ=ಾನgಯನುx ಸದ .eಾಸದF, ವವಹಸಲು ಪHೆ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಸದ .eಾಸದF, ವವಹಸಲು ಪHೆ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಸದ .eಾಸದF, ವವಹಸಲು ಪHೆ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಸದ .eಾಸದF, ವವಹಸಲು ಪHೆ]ರುವn]ಲ,. . . . ಪ2ಸುJತ ಸದ .eಾ ಪ2ಸುJತ ಸದ .eಾ ಪ2ಸುJತ ಸದ .eಾ ಪ2ಸುJತ ಸದ .eಾಸದF, 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" ಸದF, 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" ಸದF, 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" ಸದF, 12ೕ ಐಶ4ಯ" &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು =ಾBಾರ ವG=ಾಟು ನHೆಸುIJರುವnದು &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು =ಾBಾರ ವG=ಾಟು ನHೆಸುIJರುವnದು &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು =ಾBಾರ ವG=ಾಟು ನHೆಸುIJರುವnದು &ೈ6 ಇಂಡ89ೕ6 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು =ಾBಾರ ವG=ಾಟು ನHೆಸುIJರುವnದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುವn]ಲ,. . . . ಈ ಬೆO ಸದ ಸ;ಳದ }ೕ@ೋ ಪ2Iಯನುx Kಾಗೂ ಸದ ಈ ಬೆO ಸದ ಸ;ಳದ }ೕ@ೋ ಪ2Iಯನುx Kಾಗೂ ಸದ ಈ ಬೆO ಸದ ಸ;ಳದ }ೕ@ೋ ಪ2Iಯನುx Kಾಗೂ ಸದ ಈ ಬೆO ಸದ ಸ;ಳದ }ೕ@ೋ ಪ2Iಯನುx Kಾಗೂ ಸದ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು 2016 2016 2016 2016----17171717[ೇ :ಾFಂದ [ೇ :ಾFಂದ [ೇ :ಾFಂದ [ೇ :ಾFಂದ 2018 2018 2018 2018----19191919[ೇ :ಾFನವ&ೆೆ ಸLIೆ BಾವI8ರುವ [ೇ :ಾFನವ&ೆೆ ಸLIೆ BಾವI8ರುವ [ೇ :ಾFನವ&ೆೆ ಸLIೆ BಾವI8ರುವ [ೇ :ಾFನವ&ೆೆ ಸLIೆ BಾವI8ರುವ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲNದ .ವರದ ತಃ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲNದ .ವರದ ತಃ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲNದ .ವರದ ತಃ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲNದ .ವರದ ತಃSÉÛಯನುx ಈ ಪತ2 ೊಂ ಯನುx ಈ ಪತ2 ೊಂ ಯನುx ಈ ಪತ2 ೊಂ ಯನುx ಈ ಪತ2 ೊಂ]ೆ ಲಗIJ8 ]ೆ ಲಗIJ8 ]ೆ ಲಗIJ8 ]ೆ ಲಗIJ8zÉ Kಾಗೂ Kಾಗೂ Kಾಗೂ Kಾಗೂ 2019 2019 2019 2019----20 20 20 20[ೇ [ೇ [ೇ [ೇ :ಾFಂದ ಇF,ಯವ&ೆ.ಗೂ ಸದ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸLIೆ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲN :ಾFಂದ ಇF,ಯವ&ೆ.ಗೂ ಸದ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸLIೆ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲN :ಾFಂದ ಇF,ಯವ&ೆ.ಗೂ ಸದ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸLIೆ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲN :ಾFಂದ ಇF,ಯವ&ೆ.ಗೂ ಸದ ಸಂ:ೆ;ಯವರು ಸLIೆ ಾರುಕ@ೆA ಶುಲN BಾವI8ರುವnದು ಾಖ(ಾIಗoಂದ ಕಂಡು ಬಂ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಎಂಬ ಾGIಯನುx BಾವI8ರುವnದು ಾಖ(ಾIಗoಂದ ಕಂಡು ಬಂ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಎಂಬ ಾGIಯನುx BಾವI8ರುವnದು ಾಖ(ಾIಗoಂದ ಕಂಡು ಬಂ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಎಂಬ ಾGIಯನುx BಾವI8ರುವnದು ಾಖ(ಾIಗoಂದ ಕಂಡು ಬಂ]ರುವn]ಲ, ಎಂಬ ಾGIಯನುx ಸF,ಸ(ಾg ೆ ಸF,ಸ(ಾg ೆ ಸF,ಸ(ಾg ೆ ಸF,ಸ(ಾg ೆ.... ತಮP .zಾ48, `¸À»/- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 ^ಾಯ"ದ1", PÀÈ G ªÀiÁ ¸À, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ” (Emphasis added) The endorsement accepts that the license is subsisting but there is no activity by Sri Aishvarya Rice Industries. This would lead the petitioner, neither here nor there, as the subsistence of the license makes him a licence holder, even if he is in partnership with any other person, in rice business or having a rice mill. If he is a licence holder, he is debarred from participating in the tender, as he becomes a tenderer, who is holding the license to sell APMC food grains or a trader. 13. In that light, no fault can be found with the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner who was not even qualified to participate in the tender in terms of the conditions so indicated in the tender. This Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit in an appeal over the said condition to tweak it, unless the condition suffers from demonstrable arbitrariness. I do not find any such arbitrariness in the case at hand either palpable or demonstrable. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17266 WP No. 7094 of 2025 14. In that light, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The petition thus, stands rejected. Interim order of any kind, subsisting in the case at hand, stands dissolved. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:SS