- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22753 WP No. 13814 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 13814 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. MR RAJATH R SHETTY S/O RATHNAKAR SHETTY AGED 37 YEARS R/AT 1-35 MULLUGUDDE, RAGIHAKLU POST KUNDAPURA TALUK NAVUNDA UDUPI-576224. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA SURATHKAL HOSTELS TRUST POST SRINIVASNAGAR MANGALURU-575025 (DK) REP BY PROFESSOR IN-CHARGE-HOSTELS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRITERION NO. 4 AND 5 OF GROUP-A COMPANY STRENGTH OF CLAUSE NO. 10-TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA STIPULATED IN THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 22/04/2025 IN NO. 16/NITKSH/CONTRACT MESS/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNX-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22753 WP No. 13814 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside Criterion No.4 and 5 of Group-A Company Strength of Clause No.10- Technical Evaluation Criteria stipulated in the Tender Notification dated 22.04.2025. 2. The main prayer of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition was limited to Criterion No.4 and 5 of Group-A Company Strength of Clause No.10. 3. This court by interim order dated 13.05.2025 had permitted the respondent to proceed further with regard to the tender process except Technical Evaluation Criteria No.4 and 5 of Clause 10 of the Tender Document. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Sri.S.Rajashekar has filed a memo and placed before the Court the evaluation of the bid at Page no.3. There is a list of Bidders in the order of merit considering the total score of Technical and Financial Bids. The name of the impleading applicant is found at Sl.No.35 and there are 34 other Bidders. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22753 WP No. 13814 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that there was no valid bid of the petitioner to be evaluated at the time of evaluation and such aspect is not in dispute. 6. Though the learned counsel for petitioner submits that additional grounds are raised challenging the validity of the Notification, it would not be appropriate at this stage when evaluation is complete to permit such amendment. It is also to be noted that petitioner's bid was absent at the time of evaluation, to permit amendment. Considering that the scope of judicial review is generally narrow, no case is made out at this stage to permit amendment to enlarge the scope of the writ petition when evaluation of bids is at an advanced stage. 7. Accordingly, the petition does not call for any adjudication while noticing that the interim order was only insofar as petitioner is concerned. Therefore, evaluation to be done in terms of original Tender documents and proceedings is permitted to be completed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22753 WP No. 13814 of 2025 8. The impleading application is also rejected taking note of the evaluation of the tender, noticing that the impleading applicant at serial No.34 as per the order maintained scorewise. The amendment application is rejected in light of the discussion made above. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP