- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17456 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12067 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) IN W.P. No. 17456/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SPOORTHY INTEGRATED - SOLUTIONS (I) PRIVATE LTD. A PVT. LTD. COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O. SRI T.N. GANGADHAR, # 880, 1ST FLOOR, 60 FEET MAIN ROAD 'D' GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANDHADAKAVAL BENGALURU - 560 091 EMAIL: gm@spoorthygroup.in PHONE NO: 8296363332 … PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI HARSHAVARDHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MS BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 2. BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (B.M.C.R.I.) FORT, K.R. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR CUM DEAN 3. THE DIRECTOR CUM DEAN BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (B.M.C.R.I.) FORT, K.R. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 002. 4. M/S. SHARPWATCH INVESTIGATION SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. (COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT) NO.17, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE - 570 009 … IMPLEADING APPLICANT … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG FOR R1; SRI BASAVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER/OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 06.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE J AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 IN W.P. NO. 12067/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SPOORTHY INTEGRATED - SOLUTIONS (I) PRIVATE LTD. A PVT. LTD. COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O. SRI T.N. GANGADHAR, # 880, 1ST FLOOR, 60 FEET MAIN ROAD 'D' GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANDHADAKAVAL BENGALURU - 560 091 EMAIL: gm@spoorthygroup.in ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI HARSHAVARDHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MS BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (B.M.C.R.I.) FORT, K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR CUM DEAN 3. THE DIRECTOR CUM DEAN BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (B.M.C.R.I.) FORT, K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 4. M/S. SHARPWATCH INVESTIGATION SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. (COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT) NO.17, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE - 570 009. … IMPLEADING APPLICANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG FOR R1; SRI BASAVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO COMPLETE THE TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS OF THE TENDER CALLED OUT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR PROVIDING HOUSEKEEPING AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES VIDE TENDER NO.BMC/TENDER/HK/ 01/2023-24 DATED 22-11-2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C WITHIN THE BID VALIDITY PERIOD I.E., BEFORE 23RD APRIL 2025, WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER DELAY AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 CAV ORDER The petitioner entity - M/s. Spoorthy Integrated Solutions (I) Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Spoorthy'], has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.12067/2025 on 15.04.2025, seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the Respondent No.3 - Director cum Dean of Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute [hereinafter referred to as ‘BMCRI’] to complete the tender evaluation process as regards the tender issued for providing Housekeeping and Facility Management Services vide Tender bearing No.BMC/TENDER/HK/01/2023-24 dated 22.11.2024 at Annexure-'C' within the bid validity period, i.e. before 23.04.2025 without further delay. 2. W.P.No.17456/2025 has been filed on 16.06.2025 by the same entity, i.e., M/s. Spoorthy seeking to set aside the Order/Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2025 at Annexure-‘J’, whereby the Principal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 Secretary, Department of Medical Education has addressed a communication to the Director cum Dean of BMCRI wherein, it is opined that as there was a possibility of dispute if tender is allotted to any of the bidders and as it was legally permissible to re-tender in terms of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as 'KTPP Act'] and accordingly, further action could be taken. 3. Taking note that both the Writ Petitions being filed by the same entity and relate to the same tender process, it would be appropriate to dispose of both the Writ Petitions by a common order in order to avoid passing of conflicting orders. 4. The brief facts are that the Director cum Dean of BMCRI has been inviting tenders for House Keeping and Facility Management Services to the BMCRI. The tender relates to outsourcing of Housekeeping Services. As the process of evaluation had proceeded to an advanced stage - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 while no decision was taken on the apprehension that on many previous occasions the tender was recalled permitting the earlier Service Provider to continue, who had been continuing for 15 years, the petitioner M/s. Spoorthy has approached this Court seeking for an appropriate decision on the award of tender expeditiously. 5. During the pendency of W.P.No.12067/2025, the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education has expressed an opinion to recall the tender with instructions to the Dean cum Director, BMCRI and challenging such action W.P.No.17456/2025 came to be filed. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner M/s. Spoorthy that though the contract period under the earlier tender had concluded in the year 2022, the contract was being extended illegally to help the earlier Service Provider i.e., M/s. Sharpwatch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Detectwell Security Services. M/s. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 Sharpwatch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd., has also filed an application seeking impleadment. 7. It is made out that during the tender process, a Corrigendum dated 03.01.2025 was issued modifying the format for the financial bid provided in the tender document. The bids were processed and technical bid was opened on 27.01.2025 and the financial bid was also subsequently opened. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Director cum Dean of BMCRI upon a specific query by the Court in its order dated 24.04.2025 in W.P.No.12067/2025 as regards the status of the tender process, had taken the stand that the Authorities are considering the communication of the Government issued to the Director cum Dean of BMCRI regarding recalling the tender. This action, the petitioner has claimed to be being arbitrary, mala fide and has been resorted to, with an intention of helping the earlier Service Provider, as any delay in the tender process would result in continuation of services of the earlier tenderer. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 8. It is also specific case of the petitioner that the records would indicate that in terms of the tender document, the tender accepting authority having voiced the opinion that the petitioner was the most eligible bidder in terms of the tender evaluation, reference to the Principal Secretary who did not have any role to play in the decision regarding tender acceptance, was for extraneous reasons. 9. During the pendency of W.P.No.17456/2025, this Court taking note of order dated 20.06.2025 had directed vide order dated 25.06.2025 the filing of Affidavit by the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education. 10. The Affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary reads as hereunder:- "AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT- STATE OF KARNATAKA I, Mohammad Mohsin, serving as the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Medical Education, 6th Floor, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 M. S. Building, Dr B.R Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru - 560 001 do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and state as follows: 1. I am the Principal Secretary of the 1st Respondent and thus competent to swear this affidavit. 2. The tender was notified by BMCRI on 22.11.2024 under the Quality cum Cost Based Selection Method ("QCBS"). Appendix- H Format for Financial Tender (at page 39 therein) which specifies that "The rates quoted per sq meter per month/for total area per month shall be final and fixed for the entire Contract Period...". 3. Five bidders submitted their bids:- i. M/s Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Mysore ii. M/s Detectwell Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore iii. M/s BVG India Limited, Bangalore iv. M/s Spoorthy Integrated Solutions (1) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore v. AMPS Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore 4. On 03.01.2025, Pre-Bid Meeting proceedings were conducted and a Corrigendum was issued by BMCRI amending the specifications of the Financial Bid/Format for Financial Tender in which it was stated that the total amount in rupees per month inclusive of all taxes excluding GST had to be computed and uploaded by bidders on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal ("KPPP"). 5. Technical bids were opened on 27.02.2025. On 03.03.2025, the Tender Scrutiny Meeting evaluated the bids and scrutinised the documents submitted. M/s AMPS Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore was thus disqualified as it did not upload the required documents. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 6. After the Training and Demonstration Work Plan took place at BMCRI, the following marks (out of a total of 100) for technical criteria and QCBS were awarded: S.No. Bidder Marks awarded 1 BVG India Pvt. Ltd. 95.71 2 Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 97.71 3 Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd. 94.29 4 Detectwell Security Services Pvt. Ltd. 93.14 7. On 21.03.2025, Financial Bids were opened. As per the figures uploaded on KPPP when submitting the rates of supply for services to be provided, the following data reflected: S.No. Bidder Quote in rupees for 2,46,880 sq.m. 1 Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd. 46.63 2 Detectwell Security Services Pvt. Ltd. 46.63 3 Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 1,16,88,540.61 4 BVG India Pvt. Ltd. 1,31,01,171.00 8. As the KPPP is a portal that is programmed to automatically allot bidders ranks based on the data that the bidders upload (and cross-referenced against their scores obtained out of 100) this portal automatically assigned L1 to M/s Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Mysore and L2 to M/s Detectwell Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. M/s Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was assigned L3 because it submitted a lower bid when compared to M/s BVG India Pvt. Ltd. which naturally became L4 as the highest bidder. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 9. Thus, the Financial Score of the four bidders was arranged as below: S. No. Bidder Financial Score (Lowest Bid/Bid Amount) x 100 1 Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd. 100.00 2 Detectwell Security Services Pvt. Ltd. 100.00 3 Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 98.490 4 BVG India Pvt. Ltd. 87.870 10. Due to the discrepancy in quotes, BMCRI requested clarifications from M/s Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Mysore and Ms Detectwell Security Services Pvt. They both responded with a quote of Rs.1,15,12,045.23 for a total area of 2,46,880 sq. m. This quote is lesser than that which has been provided by M/s Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which is the petitioner herein. 11. In light of the proper quotes submitted above, the following results are derived as a result of computing the Technical Scores for 70% and Financial Scores for 30%: Bidder Technical score for 100 marks Technical score for 70% Financial Score for 100 marks Financial Score for 30% Overall Score for 100% Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd 94.29 66.003 100.00 30.000 96.003 Detectwell Security Services Pvt. Ltd. 93.14 65.198 98.780 30.000 95.198 Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 97.71 68.397 96.500 29.547 97.944 BVG India Pvt. Ltd. 95.71 66.997 98.516 26.361 93.358 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 12. Although the petitioner appears to score the highest, the clarified rates submitted by M/s Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Mysore and M/s Detectwell Security Services Pvt. place them as the lowest financial bidders. 13. The petitioner then filed WP No. 12067 of 2025 on 15.04.2025 seeking a direction to these respondents to complete the evaluation of the tender. This petition is pending as on date. 14. Although the QCBS Method states that the highest scorer will be awarded the contract, the discrepancies in quotes submitted during the tender process has led to a situation where the State Government will have to incur higher expenditure in paying L1 bidder when the process itself was not clear in identifying the most competent bidder at the lowest cost. 15. BMCRI, in its process, has not been able to identify the best qualified bidder at the most competitive financial rate without the need for revisions and clarifications. It then sought approval from the Directorate of Medical Education to finalise the tender. As the time for completion of the tender had lapsed, the Directorate of Medical Education sent the file to the 1st Respondent for further action. 16. Noting that the evaluation of the tender BMCRI has resulted in an L1 bidder being determined due to wrongly submitted quotes by other bidders and that the 90 day period for conclusion had expired, the 1st Respondent wrote to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on 06.06.2025 with a direction to redo the tender process as it is public money which is used to pay for such services. 17. The 1st Respondent-State Government had no role to play in the tender and it was only BMCRI which conducted the tender process." - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 11. The stand of the Principal Secretary is that in terms of the Financial Scores, the rate submitted by the impleading applicant were the lowest and though as per the evaluation of the bids under the “Quality and Cost Based Selection” (QCBS) method, the petitioner was the highest scorer, as the State would incur higher expenditure if the contract were to be awarded to the petitioner, communication was addressed to the Dean cum Director of BMCRI on 06.06.2025 to take appropriate action for recalling of the tender as is permissible in law in light of such action being permissible, in terms of KTPP Act and Rules. 12. At the time of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Reuben Jacob appearing for the respondent State had contended that as regards tenders above Rs.10.00 crores as per applicable in terms of the Karnataka Government Orders (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 ['Transaction of Business Rules' for short] approval of Cabinet was required. Accordingly, in such - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 context, the matter was escalated to the Principal Secretary and the allegation of the petitioner regarding mala fide and as regards interference of Principal Secretary with the decision of the Tender Accepting Authority is devoid of merits. 13. The impleading applicant has primarily contended that the allegation of mala fides is without any basis, that where the period of validity of bid having expired, the Principal Secretary’s opinion was appropriate and accordingly, no grounds were made out for interference. 14. In order to avoid repetition, some of the other contentions raised are addressed infra while analysing the contentions. 15. The tender procurement meeting proceedings headed by the Director, Department of Medical Education would indicate the following:- - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 (i) As the tender evaluation process was based on “Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS)”, the marks that were allotted in such process revealed that the petitioner had scored the highest marks. Sl.No. Criteria Marks Matrix M/s BVG India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Sharp Watch Investigation Security Services Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Detectwell Secruity Services Pvt. Ltd. 1 - 6 Criteria-100 Marks 95.71 97.71 94.29 93.14 (ii) The said proceedings would reveal that the previous tender period closed on 10.01.2023. (iii) It was specifically resolved in the meeting that the period of tender had ended on 10.01.2023 and period having been extended, it would be difficult to maintain transparency in case of re-tender and that it would be appropriate to take a decision in the interest of patients and administrative interests. (iv) It was resolved to award the tender to the petitioner and for the issuance of Work Order, it was resolved get approval of the Government. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 It would be appropriate to extract the relevant Minutes of the proceedings: "ಸದ ೆಂಡgïನು ರದು ೊ ಮತು ೆಂಡ ಆಾದ ಸುಾರು ಸಮೆಗಳ" ಉದ$ವ&ಾಗುತ&ೆ ಅಂದ(ೆ ಪ*ಸುತ ಸಚ,-ಾ .ಾಯ0ವ01ಸು2ರುವ ೆಂಡನ ಅವ3ಯು 10.01.2023 gÀPÉÌ ಅಂತೊಂ4ದು , EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ ಆ5ೇಶಗಳನು ೕಡುತ .ಾಯ0ವ01ಸ8ಾಗು25ೆ, ಒಂದು&ೇ:ೆ ಪ*ಸುತ ಆಾರುವ ಸಚ,-ಾ ೆಂಡ gÀzÀÄÝೊಂಡು ಮರು ೆಂಡ ಆಾದ ೆಂಡನ ;ಾರದಶ0ಕ-ೆ .ಾಪಡಲು ಕಷ?ಾಧ&ಾಗುತ5ೆ. ಆದ ಂದ ಆಸA-ೆ*ಯ (ೋBಗಳ ಾಗೂ ಆಡ-ಾತCಕ 1ತದೃE?Fಂದ ಪ*ಸುತ ಆಾರುವ ೆಂಡ ಅನು ಅಂBೕಕ ಅಂ2ಮೊಸುವಂvÉ ಸGೆಯ 2ೕಾ0ಸ8ಾFತು. HೆಂಗಳIರು &ೈದKೕಯ ಮಾL5ಾಲಯ ಮತು ಸಂMೆNೕಧOಾ ಸಂೆP, HೆಂಗಳIರು ಇವರು ಆR0ಕ ಸS2 ಸGೆಯ ಸದ ೆಂಡ ಆಾಸಲು ಅನುTೕದOೆ ಪUೆVರುವWದನು ಗಮಸ8ಾFತು. ºÉaÑ£À DAPÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ M/s Spoorthy Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß ಅಹ0 ೆಂಡgïzÁgÀ(ೆಂದು ಅಂBೕಕ .ಾYಾ05ೇಶ ೕಡುವ ಸಂಬಂದ ಸ.ಾ0ರದ ಅನುTೕದOೆೆ ಸ ಅದರಂ-ೆ ಕ*ಮವ1ಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಸGೆಯು 2ೕಾ0ತು". 16. While the last date for submission of tender was 23.01.2025, and in terms of Clause-13 of tender document the period of validity was 90 days from such date, i.e. the period would expire on 23.04.2025 and well - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 within such time the evaluation process was concluded on 07.04.2025 and only for the purpose of approval, the matter was referred to Government. Meanwhile, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.12067/2025 seeking direction to complete the process within the 90 day period. 17. Though the impleading applicant made a faint attempt to contend that the tender had lapsed, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that in light of litigation before this Court, there could be no technical termination of the tender proceedings by relying on Clause-13. Accordingly, it can be stated that Clause-13 cannot defeat the tender proceedings. It is also noticed that well within 90 days, evaluation was concluded and decision was taken to award the tender and what remained was approval and issuance of Work Order. 18. Curiously, once decision was taken and matter was sent for approval, the consideration takes a different turn. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 19. It would be appropriate to refer to the orders passed in W.P.No.12067/2025 on 24.04.2025 and 02.05.2025 which read as follows:- "Order Dated 24.04.2025 Shri Basavavi Patil, undertakes to enter appearance for respondents No.2 and 3 and would submit that the tender process is nearing completion, as all the scrutiny papers have been sent to the Department for its approval. Learned High Court Government Pleader shall secure instructions as to what has become of the communication from the second respondent, with regard to completion of the tender process. List this matter on 29.04.2025, in the fresh matters list. Order Dated 02.05.2025 The learned AGA to secure instructions as to when the tender would be taken to its logical conclusion as the allegation is for the last 15 years the same tenderer is being shown favouritism and by the next date, if the tender is not taken to its logical conclusion, unless there is reasons so recorded in writing, the matter would be viewed very seriously. List the matter on 02.06.2025." 20. In the backdrop of such directions, Annexure-‘J’ dated 06.06.2025 has been passed and relevant extract is as follows:- - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 "ೕೆ ವ ರುವ ೆೆಯ, ಈ ೆಂಡನ ಾವ ೆಂಡರುಾರರನು ಆ ಾದರೂ "ಾದ"ಾಗುವ $ಾಧ&'ೆ ಇರುತ*ೆ ಮತು* ಾನ& ಾ&ಾಲಯದ ಇ ೊಬ. ೆಂಡರುಾರರು ಸ0ಾ1ರದ ಆೇಶವನು ಪ45ಸುವ ಸಂಭವರುವ7ದಂದ, 0ಾನೂ8ನ ತಳಹ;ಯ ಮರುೆಂಡ ಕ=ೆಯಲು $ಾಧ&'ೆ ಇರುವ7ದನು ಕ ಾ1ಟಕ $ಾವ1ಜ8ಕ ಸಂಗ4ಹ@ೆಗಳ Aಾರದಶ1ಕ'ೆ ಅC8ಯಮ, 1999 ಮತು* 8ಯಮಗಳD, 2000ರನEಯ Fಾಗೂ ಆG1ಕ ಇಾHೆಯು 0ಾಲ0ಾಲ0ೆ Fೊರಸುವ ಆೇಶ/ಾಗ1ಸೂIಗಳD/ಸು'ೊ*ೕೆಯ£Àéಯ ಪ7ನ ಪರ5ೕ , 8ಯಾನು$ಾರ ಸೂಕ* ಕ4ಮ 0ೈKೊಳDLವಂ'ೆ ತಮKೆ MNಸಲು 8ೇ15ತ ಾOೆPೕ ೆ Fಾಗೂ QೌMಕ ಕಡತವನು ಇದ=ೊಂ;Kೆ ಲಗM* , ಂ;ರುO ೆ". 21. Annexure-’J’ is to be treated to be an order insofar as except for Annexure-‘J’, the logical conclusion of proceedings may have resulted in the award of tender. 22. A reading of Annexure-‘J’ would reveal the following:- (i) In light of the preamble portion, containing narration, it is observed that the selection of any of the tenderers would result in a dispute. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 (ii) The award of tender to any particular bidder would lead to a possibility of challenge before the Court. (iii) That there is provision for re-tender in terms of the KTPP Act and Rules, Accordingly, the matter was directed to be reconsidered in terms of the orders, directions and Circulars of the Finance Department. 23. It is also necessary to note that in W.P.No.17456/2025, when the State did not take any definitive stand as regards the tender process on 20.06.2025, this Court, by order dated 20.06.2025 had passed an order which reads as follows:- “Learned Senior counsel Sri Sandesh J. Chouta appearing on behalf of the petitioner asserts that the tendering process is dithering and despite the petitioner having been declared to L-1 bidder. It is further submitted that though in terms of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Director, Medical Education, opinion was expressed that the tender could be awarded to the petitioner, till date no decision is taken. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 It is further submitted that, surprisingly in terms of Annexure-J, the Government has kept open the proposed action of giving up the tendering process. It is specifically asserted that the stand of the Government has created serious misgivings and accordingly, Court needs to step-in and pass appropriate directions. Subject to further consideration, taking note of the specific submission that the earlier service provider has continued for about 15 years and would be a beneficiary as regards any delay in concluding the tendering process, there would stay of the communication at Annexure-J dated 06.06.2025. The respondent No.1 to take a stand by the next date while making it clear any effort that does not inspire confidence in the tendering process would be visited with serious consequences. Time has come when procurement process needs not only to be transparent but expeditious and inspire confidence and carried on without interference from others apart from the Decision Making Authority. Copy of the order to be furnished to the Government Advocate. Re-list the matter on 25.06.2025." 24. The order is self-explanatory and there is a direction to the Principal Secretary who was representing the State which was arrayed as respondent No.1 to take - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 definitive stand and the matter was adjourned to 25.06.2025. The Court then directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education to take a stand in writing by way of Affidavit, which is extracted supra. 25. The Affidavit reveals the stand of the State and following points arise from the Affidavit:- (i) At the outset, it must be noticed that as rightly observed by the averment in para-17 of the Affidavit, the State has unequivocally asserted that it had no role to play in the tender process and it is only BMCRI which has conducted the tender process. (ii) The evaluation process consisted of allotment of technical scores for 70% and financial score for 30%. (iii) The QCBS method was adopted for evaluation of the tender process and the award of tender would be only to the highest scorer in the evaluation process. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 (iv) The file was sent to the Principal Secretary as time for completion of the tender process had lapsed. (v) That the decision of ‘L1 bidder’ was wrongly arrived at due to wrongly submitted quotes. (vi) Accordingly, as public money was involved, there was a direction to the Director cum Dean, BMCRI to re-do the tender process, as public money was used to pay such services. 26. At the time of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Reuben Jacob who has been appearing for the respondent State has raised further contentions that were not placed before the Court by way of pleadings. The contentions raised and noticed were also not part of the Affidavit of Principal Secretary. The said contentions are noticed infra. 27. The stand in the Affidavit as well as oral arguments raised by the Additional Advocate General require consideration and the Court is required to examine - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 as to whether case is made out for exercise of judicial review as regards the tender process. 28. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri Reuben Jacob had contended that in terms of the Transaction of Business Rules, 1977 as well as other applicable Government Circulars where the financial implication of the tender exceeded Rs.10.00 crores, the matter was required to be placed before the Cabinet for approval and the communication/order at Annexure-‘J’ of the Principal Secretary was only process of placing the matter before the Cabinet and could not be construed to be an independent order. 29. The Government Order dated 26.08.2019 has been relied upon by the State to contend that in the event of contracts exceeding Rs.10.00 crores, the proposals would require financial concurrence and ought to be placed before the Cabinet for approval. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 30. Reliance is also placed on the 'Transaction of Business Rules, 1977 and in particular, First Schedule Clause-15(i) to contend that administrative approval of work estimates involving procurement of services where estimate exceeds rupees ten crores require to be brought before the Cabinet. 31. It is to be noticed that the Government Order bearing No.Ae6tfp2018 Bangalore dated 22.03.2019 provides for re-vesting of power with the Departmental Heads as regards appointment on outsource basis and in particular, to Group-D employees when resorted to, under procedure prescribed under KTPP Act. If that were to be so, the power of appointment as regards Group-D vests with the Director and the Dean. 32. It is relevant to note that in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, Part-II provides for Classification and Rule 5(3)(d) refers to who constitute Group-D posts as - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 regards their pay scale. The said Clause is extracted as below "5. Classification of Services, (3) XXX (d) Group "D' shall consist of posts specified in Schedule-IV and the posts carrying the scale of pay of Rupees 17000-400-18600-450-20400-500- 22400-550-24600-600-27000-650-28950 and above, but below the scale of pay of Rupees 21400- 500-22400-550-24600-600-27000-650 9600-750- 32600-850-36000-950-39800-1100-42000 Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-rule scale of pay means the revised scales of pay specified in respect of various posts in the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2018 and related orders." 33. Further, the staff of housekeeping services of which are sought to be procured by way of tender through outsourcing is asserted to be Group-D Cadre staff. Such assertion is not controverted by the Government. Though Government has contended that the Government Order of 26.08.2019 would supersede the Government Order of 22.03.2019 and has pointed that the former requires - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 Cabinet approval, however, the Government Order dated 22.03.2019 which does not require Cabinet approval still prevails. This is evidenced by Government Order bearing No.FD08TFP/ 2023/Bangalore dated 28.10.2024, which at Sl.No.25 provides that Government Order bearing No.FD 6 TFP 2018 dated 22.03.2019 shall be followed. 34. If it were to be contended that approval is to be made by the Cabinet, in the present case, the direction to the Director cum Dean, BMCRI by the Principal Secretary is a procedure whereby matter is not even being placed before the Cabinet. 35. By virtue of the action of Principal Secretary, direction is given to reconsider the re-tendering. If that were to be so, the argument of respondent State that direction by the Principal Secretary is only in furtherance of requirement to obtain approval by the Cabinet is not made out. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 36. As regards such contention that the contract requires approval by the Cabinet, it is to be observed that such condition is not found in the tender document. 37. The mandate as put forward of procedure to be followed in terms of Transaction of Business Rules 1977, is an internal procedure and ought to be limited to such administrative approval and cannot substitute or amount to sitting in appeal over the decision of the tender accepting authority. 38. The order at Annexure-‘J’ dated 06.06.2025 is liable to be set aside as being arbitrary insofar as the mere possibility of one of the parties approaching Court could not be a legally permissible reason to order for re-tender. The assertion that there was a provision for re-tender under the KTPP Act and accordingly, the same may be considered is not legally tenable, as under Section 14 of the KTPP Act, there could be rejection of tender only if there is no acceptance. In the present case, the tender - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 accepting authority had arrived at the conclusion that the tender was to be awarded to the petitioner and the tender accepting authority has observed that it was necessary for acceptance of the tender as (a) in the event of re-tender, maintenance of transparency would be difficult; (b) In the interest of patients and administration, it was necessary to accept the bids made and finalize the tender. If such was the opinion of the tender accepting authority, what remained was only the approval and issuance of Work Order. The direction to reconsider and examining re-tender is arbitrary as indicating a decision ignoring the opinion of the tender accepting authority and defeats the objective of KTPP Act to ensure transparency. 39. Accordingly, the Order/Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2025 at Annexure-‘J’, in W.P.No.17456/2025 is set aside. The State represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education to take appropriate steps for approval of tender in light of the discussion made at para-37 strictly. No other approval - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42311 WP No. 17456 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12067 of 2025 would be required as clarified in paras 31 to 33. Such decision is to be taken without re-opening any of the contentions discussed and as regards which findings are recorded. Once approval is obtained in terms of the discussion made above, the BMCRI to issue Work Order within a period of 30 days. In the event of any delay, necessary extension of time is to be sought for before this Court. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR