- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5451 WP No. 147533 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 147533 OF 2020 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: HONNAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA MALAKARI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-I CONTRACTOR (CIVIL), R/O: TEJASWI NAGAR, KALAGHATAGI ROAD, DHARWAD. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSHA.A.NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, KANNADA AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, MUSEUMS AND HERITAGE, KANNADA EXHIBITION AUTHORITY PREMISES, MYSORE-570 010. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN.K.UPPAR., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5451 WP No. 147533 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Sri.Shriharsha A.Neelopant., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveen K.Uppar., AGA for respondents have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 08.07.2019 in Appeal No.2962/KCS/2017 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-A. (ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 03.12.2016 of forfeiting the EMD amount passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G. (iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 13.05.2020 submitted by the petitioner to the respondents vide Annexure-F. 3. The brief facts are these: In 2015, the Technical Advisory Committee, Department of Archaeology, Museums and Heritage approved for inviting tender for conservation of Lingayat Town Hall in Dharwad City. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5451 WP No. 147533 of 2020 The administrative approval was given in 2016. The petitioner submitted application for the tender through e-Procurement on 18.01.2016. The petitioner was the successful bidder and got tender for conservation of Lingayat Town Hall in Dharwad City. On 22.03.2016, the Archaeological Conservation Engineer North Zone, Department of Archaeology, Museums and Heritage, Dharwad insisted the petitioner to give a model bank guarantee. The petitioner requested the department to give him the letter of acceptance of tender work. The second respondent rejected the bid of the petitioner mentioning that he has not paid the security deposit. The petitioner contends that an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was deposited by him. However, the same was forfeited. Hence, he preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 before the first respondent. The Commissioner vide order dated 08.07.2019 rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished the bank guarantee. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5451 WP No. 147533 of 2020 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. Suffice it to note that the petitioner was the highest bidder. The letter of acceptance of tender was not given to him. The respondents insisted him to give a model bank guarantee and accordingly the petitioner furnished the bank guarantee. The bid was rejected saying that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was not in accordance with the notification. The respondents forfeited EMD amount. The petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents that the letter of acceptance of tender was not given to him and hence, requested them to refund the EMD amount. However, his request was turned down on the ground that the petitioner has failed to make security deposit within twenty days from the receipt of letter of acceptance and therefore, as per Condition No.29.4, they forfeited the amount. The refusal to refund EMD amount cannot be sustained. The reason is apparent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was successful bidder. However, the letter of acceptance of tender was not given to him. Hence, he cannot - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5451 WP No. 147533 of 2020 be construed as a successful tenderer. Therefore, the denial is unjust. 6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 08.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.2962/KCS/2017 vide Annexure-A and the order dated 03.12.2016 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G are quashed. A direction is issued to the second respondent to refund the EMD amount of Rs.2,60,000/- to the petitioner after due identification within eight weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH/MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 48