- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO.100007 OF 2025 BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD, BY ITS MANAGAR, MAHENDRAKUMAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, R/O: 4, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHARARAJA PETE, BENGALURU – 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. SHRI VEERABHADRESHWAR AGENCY, INAMDYAMNKOPPAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI GADIGEYYA V. HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BELAGALPETH, HANGAL TALUK., HAVERI DIST – 581 199. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANASOUDHA, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL, FOOD ITEMS, PURCHASES COMMITTEE, HAVERI – 581 110. 5. MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEVE FOOD ITEMS, PURCHASES COMMITTEE AND TEH DEPUTY DIRECTOR , SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND MEMBER SECRETARY, HAVERI – 581 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2 TO R5; SRI V.M.SHEELVANT AND SRI M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATES FOR R1) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.100195/2025 (GM-TEN) AT ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND PASS OTHER ORDER AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.100195/2025. This comes to be disposed by an order of this Court dated 17.01.2025. The respondent No.5 therein has presented the subject review petition seeking review of the order dated 17.01.025. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.V.M.Sheelvant and Sri.M.L.Vanti appearing for respondent No.1 and learned AGA-Sri.Sharad V. Magadum appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 3. The respondent was the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.100195/2025. The prayer sought in the writ petition reads as follows: “THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE WORK ORDER PERTAINING TO SHIGGAON, HANGAL, HAVERI AND SAVANUR TALUKAS BEARING NO.KRASAM.UNISAKAEHA.S4.AA AND ESA.CR.2024-25 DATED 19-12-2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 TO F3 RESPECTIVELY (ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER) IN FAVOUR OF 5TH RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A WRIT IN MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO ACCEPT TENDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR SHIGGAON, HANGAL, HAVERI AND SAVANUR TALUKAS, AS HE COME UNDER THE PREFERENTIAL CATEGORY AS PER THE TENDER NOTIFICATION AND TO ISSUE WORK ORDER ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,” 4. Answering the prayer, this Court disposes the petition by the following order: 3. The Petitioners an agency, which is in the business of supply of food material to schools, hostels and other institutions for a decade now. The fourth respondent issues a notice inviting tender for supply of food materials and other items to pre matric and post matric hostels and residential schools in Haveri District, Haveri Taluk for the year 2024-2025 and 2025-2026. The petitioner participates in the tender. The apprehension of rejection of tender that loomed large petitioner, he was before this Court in Writ Petition No.22089/2024. 4. The apprehension was that the tender notification could be recalled and a fresh tender notification would be issued. The submission was made by the learned AGA, on instructions, that the tender inviting authorities would proceed with the tender notification dated 13.03.2024 and the clarification dated 26.06.2024. In the light of the said submission, Writ Petition comes to be disposed. After the disposal, the fifth respondent is awarded the contract, contrary to law. The award of contract to the fifth respondent is what has driven the petitioner to this Court, yet again, in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel Sri M.L. Vanti appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the notice inviting tender was clear that preference should be given to localites. A clarification was issued by the State as to who would be localite. In terms of which, the tender - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 ought to have been awarded to the petitioner. The tender is awarded to the fifth respondent, who is not a localite. Therefore, would seek quashment of the issuance of work order of the fifth respondent. 6. Learned counsel Sri Vishwanath Hegde along with Smt. Joshna P. Dhanave would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the State secured clarification on 13.08.2024 that even persons who are outside the jurisdiction of Haveri District are entitled to get the contract and therefore, the contract was awarded in favour of the 5th respondent and no fault can be found with the said award of contract. He would further submit the fifth respondent has invested huge amount and is now supplying food material in terms of the contract for the last one month. 7. The learned AGA would submit that the clarification is issued on 13.08.2024. Therefore, the tender scrutiny committee found the fifth respondent’s tender to be responsive and has awarded the contract to him. No fault can be found with the said award of contract. 8. Both the counsel would in unison submit that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 and this Court should not entertain the petition in the teeth of the alternative remedy. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record. 10. The aforenarrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner and the fifth respondent both are in the business of supply of food material, the petitioner in Haveri District, and the fifth respondent elsewhere. A notice inviting tender is issued on 13.03.2024. The said conditions germane as follows : “l. This Tender is notified as per the Govt. order No.¸ÀPÀE:97;¥Àd« 2023 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28.01.2023 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ i. D¸ÀPÀÛ mÉAqÀgïzÁgÀgÀÄ J¯Áè UÀÆæ¥ïUÀ½UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ©qï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 ii. mÉAqÀgï£À°è MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÁéªÀÄåzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¹zÀÝ CAvÀºÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¥ÀzÁxÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ PÉêÀ® MAzÉà UÀÆæ¥ïUÉ ©qï. ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CAvÀºÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è UÀÆæ¥ïªÁgÀÄ J¯ï C£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. iii. f¯Áè ªÀÄlÖzÀ mÉAqÀgï£ÀÄß CAwªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ªÀ»ªÁlÄzÁgÀjUÉ DzÀåvÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. iv. ¥ÀrvÀgÀ zÀgÀUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVgÀĪÀ CQÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÉÆâAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ DºÁgÀ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ UÉÆÃzÁªÀÄÄUÀ½AzÀ AiÀıÀ¹é mÉAqÀgïzÁgÀgÉà JvÀÄÛªÀ½ ªÀiÁr «zÁåyð¤®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄ. ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. F JvÀÄÛªÀ½ ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.” 11. The aforequoted is indicative of the fact that when the tender is issued districtwise, the local traders or tenderers should be given preference. This clarification for this was sought by the tender inviting authority, as to who would be a localite, which was clarified on 26.06.2024. The clarification is as follows: “¸ÀASÉå:SWD/35/PKV/2024 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ, «PÁ¸À¸ËzsÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26-06-2024. EªÀjAzÀ: ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. EªÀjUÉ: f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ºÁªÉÃj f¯Éè, ºÁªÉÃj. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ºÁªÉÃj f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁd E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ «zÁåyð¤®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉUÀ½UÉ DºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¸ÁªÀÄVæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇgÉʸÀ®Ä DºÁ餹zÀ mÉAqÀgï ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀȶÖPÀgÀt ¤ÃqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR: ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: fºÁ/d¤¸ÀQºÁ/J¸ï-4/¹Dgï/2023- 24/639, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05-04-2024. *** ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ, ¸ÀܽÃAiÀĪÁV mÉæÃqï ¯Éʸɣïì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f.J¸ï.n jf¸ÉÖæõÀ£ï ºÉÆA¢zÀ°è, CAvÀºÀ - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 mÉAqÀgïzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ªÀ»ªÁlÄzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ.” 12. In the interregnum, on an apprehension that the tender would be recalled, the petitioner had knocked at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.22089/2024. The Coordinate Bench after recording the statement of the State, disposed the petition by the following order : “The petitioner asserts to be the lowest bidder following the tender notification dated 13.03.2024 issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner's apprehension is that without issuance of the work order, the tender inviting authority is likely to issue a fresh tender notification. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions submits that the tender inviting authority has taken a decision to proceed with the tender notification dated 13.03.2024 including the clarification dated 26.06.2024 issued by respondent No.1, in accordance with law. 3. Submission is placed on record. 4. In view of the above, the relief sought for in this writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.” 13. The disposal of the petition comes about on 23.08.2024. 14. The learned AGA’s statement was recorded that the tender inviting authorities would proceed with the tender dated 13.03.2024 as clarified on 26.06.2024. The clarification is quoted supra. The clarification is unequivocal that who is a local trader. The tender condition is that the local trader should be given preference. After the disposal of the petition, the contract in terms of the earlier tender is awarded in favour of the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent admittedly does not come within the clarification so issued on 26.06.2024. 15. Learned AGA would now place on record a subsequent clarification dated 13.08.2024. Therefore, it is clarification versus clarification. The earlier clarification - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 would hold good for the reason that it did bear consideration at the hands of the Coordinate Bench. The Coordinate Bench disposed the petition recording the clarification. Therefore, to get over the rigour of order dated 26.06.2024. In the light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench disposing the petition, recording the clarification, tender could not have been awarded, contrary to the tender condition and the clarification and the order passed by this Court, to the fifth respondent. 16. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed and the award of contract is to be tweaked only if the petitioner fulfills all other conditions notified in the tender and its analysis by the tender scrutiny committee, since the petition deserves to be allowed only on the score that he is a local tenderer and the fifth respondent is allegedly not a local tenderer. If the petitioner does not fulfill other conditions of tender, the work order that is already issued to the fifth respondent would not be disturbed, but in the event, he fulfills the tender conditions, the tender would be awarded to the petitioner. 17. The tender scrutiny committee shall also take note of the submission of the fifth respondent that he is also a local trader in accordance with law. The said exercise shall conclude within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Insofar as the supply is concerned, whoever is supplying today, shall supply till the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the tender scrutiny committee. 5. After the release of the order the respondent No.5 preferred the subject review petition on a certain circumstance. The circumstance is the very petitioner who had preferred Writ Petition No.100195/2025 had earlier preferred Writ Petition No.105309/2024. The prayer that is sought in the said writ petition is as follows: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 “THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE WORK ORDER FOR TWO YEARS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FOR ‘HANAGAL’, ‘SHIGGAON’ AND ‘SAVANUR’ TALUKS BY CONSIDERING CLARIFICATION DATED 26.06.2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-C; TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO OPEN THE PETITIONERS BIDS FOR BYADAGI, HIREKERUR AND RANEBENNUR TALUKS AND EVALUATE THE SAME ALONG WITH OTHER BIDS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC” If the prayer sought in the earlier petition and petition that this Court dispose are juxtaposed it would mean that the prayers are in duplication. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench after considering the prayer of the petitioner declines to accept any of the contentions and rejects the petition. The rejection of the petition in Writ Petition No.105309/2024 is not averred in Writ Petition No.100915/2025 and no submission to that effect was also made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.100195/2025 appears to have been taken for a ride, by the petitioner as he has not divulged the filing of the earlier petition as the counsels who have preferred the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 earlier petition is different and the petition which this Court had disposed is different. Therefore, there is material suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner. These facts would undoubtedly become ingredients of the review being entertained as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati1. 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3234 RP No. 100007 of 2025 (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 7. In the light of the aforesaid suppression, the review petition requires to be entertained and the order dated 17.01.2025 be recalled. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the following: ORDER (i) The review petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 17.01.2025 stands recalled. (iii) The petition is restored to file. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34