- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 108166 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: RANGANATHA ENTERPRISES, WARD NO.16, HOUSE NO.48, RANGANATHA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, VISHAL NAGAR, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, BALLARI-583101. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MEKALA SREEDEVI W/O. M. SREERAMULU, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR, RANGANATHA ENTERPRISES, R/O.WARD NO.16, HOUSE NO.48, RANGANATH NILAYA 3RD CROSS, VISHAL NAGAR, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, BALLARI – 583 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY NANDALIKE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Date: 2025.12.09 11:55:15 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 5TH MAIN ROAD, ABHISHEK HOSPITAL ROAD, HOSAPETE – 583 201, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT, TB DAM ROAD, TSPL BUILDING, HOSAPETE – 583 201, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THE REQUEST IS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR ANOTHER SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, INSTRUCTING RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.09.2025 AS REFERENCED IN ANNEXURE-G, AND TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO WORK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction setting aside the Impugned Cancellation proceedings dated 17.09.2025 vide Annexure-A. B. The request is for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, or another suitable Writ, Order, or Direction, instructing Respondent no.2 and 3 to act according to The agreement dated 15.09.2025 as referenced in Annexure-G, and to allow the Petitioner to work in compliance with the agreement. C. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri Ajay Nandalike, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The 2nd respondent issues a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 29.07.2025, for the purpose of distribution of food and other materials to Pre-Metric and Post-Metric hostels and residential schools operating under the Social Welfare Department in four taluks of Vijayanagara District, for a period of two years or until further orders. The petitioner finding itself to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 be qualified, participates in the tender by complying all the tender criteria. In the technical evaluation of the bids, the petitioner emerges as the successful bidder. The petitioner emerges as the successful bidder and the second respondent issues work order of the tender to commence the work from 01.10.2025, with a condition to the petitioner to enter into a contract concerning the work order. The petitioner accordingly furnished bank guarantee and fulfilled other statutory obligations to become eligible to enter into a contract between the second respondent on 15.09.2025. Pursuant to issuance of the work order, the petitioner commenced to supply the materials. The supply continued for a period of 15 days. As a bolt from the blue, the petitioner receives cancellation order dated 17.09.2025, which contains that there are certain allegations that the petitioner is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (for short, ‘the MSME’) and was eligible to participate in the tender and indicated that the re-tendering would be notified. Consequently, the work order issued in favour of the petitioner was also cancelled. Aggrieved by such cancellation, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 4. Sri Ajay Nandalike, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner is declared as a successful bidder, work order is issued and pursuant to which, the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee and executed an agreement. The petitioner also commenced to execute the work order. He would submit that the respondents have cancelled the work order of the petitioner, without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity to be heard. The respondents have not followed due process of law and the impugned cancellation order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that the dispute if any, against the petitioner could only be made before the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the KTPP Act’). 5. Per contra, the learned AGA submits that there were several complaints against the petitioner as it is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and in terms of the tender conditions, a MSME cannot participate and quote rates. Therefore, on this ground he would defend the cancellation order of the second respondent. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and have perused the records. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of dates and events are all a matter of record. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) comes to be issued on 29.07.2025. Several bidders participate in the tender process and the petitioner emerges as the lowest bidder and becomes successful. A Letter of Intent (LOI) is issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.09.2025. The petitioner accepted the work order, complies with the legal formalities and commences to execute the work order accordingly. The second respondent only the score that several complaints were made by other participants in the tender that the petitioner being a MSME has quoted rates, which is impermissible in terms of the conditions of the tender, cancels the tender by issuing the impugned cancellation order. It is evident from the records that the impugned cancellation order is passed without issuing any notice and affording an opportunity of hearing. It is trite that once a work order is awarded, any cancellation of such work order must necessarily comply with the principles of natural justice, in the least by issuing a notice to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 party. In the case at hand, no prior notice or opportunity of hearing is afforded before taking the impugned action. Therefore, the impugned cancellation order in unsustainable in law and requires to be obliterated. 8. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Nandalike, also merits acceptance. Once the tender process has been taken to its logical conclusion and the acceptance of tender is issued under Section 13 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the KTPP Act’), the only remedy available to any other tenderer whose bid has not been accepted is to approach the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Act. 9. The KTPP Act provides a statutory remedy of appeal under Sections 13 and 16, which read as follows: “13. Acceptance of Tender.—The Tender Accepting Authority shall, after following such procedure as may be prescribed pass order accepting the tender and shall communicate the information relating to acceptance of tender together with a comparative analysis and reasons for accepting of tender to the procurement entity and 35[on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal]: Provided that where the Tender Accepting Authority consists of single officer who is due to retire within the next six months, from the date fixed for the acceptance for tender, he shall not act - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 to accept the tender without obtaining prior approval of the Procurement Entity: Provided further that subject to such general or special order as may be issued by the Government from time to time, the Tender Accepting Authority may before passing order accepting a tender negotiate with lowest tenderer. 16. Appeal.—(1) Any tenderer aggrieved by an order passed by the Tender Accepting Authority other than the Government under Section 13 may appeal to the prescribed authority within [fifteen] days from the date of receipt of the order: Provided that the prescribed authority may, in its discretion allow further time not exceeding [fifteen] days for preferring any such appeal, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. (2) The prescribed authority may after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties pass such order thereon as it deems fit and such order shall be final. (3) The prescribed authority shall as far as possible dispose of the appeal within thirty days from the date of filing thereof.” 10. Entertaining complaints before the tender inviting authority for cancellation of an already awarded tender is impermissible. Such grievances can only be raised before the appellate authority by filing an appeal under Section 16 of the Act, as provided in law. 11. In the case at hand, no appeal has been preferred and no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15206 WP No. 108166 of 2025 cancellation of the tender. There is, therefore, a complete violation of law and of principles of natural justice. 12. In light of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to succeed and accordingly the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned cancellation proceedings dated 17.09.2025 vide Annexure-A stands quashed. iii. Liberty, however, is reserved to the aggrieved party, if any, to approach the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Act, should the need so arise. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0