- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14332 WP No. 8822 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8822 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: M/S. SHARPWATCH INVESTIGATION SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD., (COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT) NO.17, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SRI. ARUN KUMAR D. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKSHITHA D.J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. DIRECTOR-CUM-DEAN, BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BANGALORE, FORT (AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14332 WP No. 8822 of 2025 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA), K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. BBASAVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. HARSHAVARDHANA, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED APPLICANT IN I.A.No.2/2025) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN TENDER BEARING NO.BMC/TENDER/HK/01/2023- 24 DATED 22/11/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO-2, DIRECTOR-CUM-DEAN BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "(a) Call for Records in tender bearing No.BMC/TENDER/HK/01/2023-24 dated 22/11/2024 issued by the Respondent No-2, Director-Cum-Dean Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute vide Annexure-A. (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus, order or direction in the nature of writ directing the Respondent No-2, Dean-cum-Director Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute Bangalore to consider the Representation dated 22/03/2025 bearing - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14332 WP No. 8822 of 2025 No.SWISS/TEN/639612024 to 25 vide Annexure-E and to consequently consider the Financial Bid of the Petitioner as the petitioner is the lowest/L-1 Bidder. (c) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the proceedings, in the ends of justice and equity." 2. Heard Shri Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1; Shri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior counsel for Shri Basavaraj Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Shri Harshavardhan, learned counsel appearing for proposed applicant in I.A.No.2/2025. 3. The second respondent issues a notice inviting tender for manpower services in the Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI) and allied hospitals. The notice inviting tender was issued on 22.11.2024. The petitioner and the impleading applicant participate in the said tender. On 24.12.2024, the technical bid is opened. The petitioner and the impleading applicant along with others are held to be qualified. After the opening of the technical bid, it transpires that a corrigendum comes to be issued on 03.01.2025, long before - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14332 WP No. 8822 of 2025 the opening of the technical bid. The technical bid is opened on 27.01.2025. The petitioner and the impleading applicant both are found qualified in the technical bid and their financial bid was to be assessed. On 21.03.2025, the financial bid is opened. On the next day i.e., 22.03.2025, a representation springs from the hands of the petitioner, after looking into the financial bid that the tender should be avoided in a particular manner. That having not been considered, two days later, present petition is preferred. 4. Shri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior counsel representing the impleading applicant would submit that the Tender Scrutiny Committee is yet to even assess the financial bid of all the successful tenderers including the petitioner and the impleading applicant. Therefore, the writ petition is premature. 5. The submission of the learned Senior counsel merits acceptance, as the Tender Scrutiny Committee is yet to notify any tenderer to be responsive pursuant to the tender. The petitioner would have all the remedy available in law once the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14332 WP No. 8822 of 2025 successful tenderer is notified or work order is to be issued or before the work order to be issued. 6. Keeping all the contentions open, the petition stands disposed, reserving the aforesaid liberty. The interim order of any kind, subsisting would stand dissolved. I.A.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025 are disposed as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK