- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14670 WP No. 101914 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101914 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: ANITA ENTERPRISES, WARD NO.23, DOOR NO.18 BEHIND COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, RADIO PARK, BALLARI- 583102, DIST. BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. G. ESHWARAYYA S/O G. NARASIMHALU, AGE: 59 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, KAMPLI- 583132, DIST. BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1, SRI. B. SHARANABASWA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AN 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER BY QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.¥ÀÄ.PÀ.PÀA/ DgÉÆÃUÀå/ EvÀgÉ/ 01/ 2024-25 DATED 25.02.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO THE PETITIONER. ISSUE CONSEQUENTIAL WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER BY QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED. 01.03.2025 BEARING NO.¥ÀÄ.PÀ.PÀA/ DgÉÆÃUÀå/ EvÀgÉ/ 01/ 2024-25 AS PER ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE CONSEQUENTIAL WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO TAKE Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14670 WP No. 101914 of 2025 SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEES AS PER THE LIST PROVIDED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE LETTER DATED 08.12.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order by quashing the communication bearing no.¥ÀÄ.PÀ.PÀA/DgÉÆÃUÀå/EvÀgÉ/01/2024-25 dated 25.02.2025 as per Annexure-G issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner. B. Issue consequential writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order by quashing the notice dated 01.03.2025 bearing No.¥ÀÄ.PÀ.PÀA/ DgÉÆÃUÀå/ EvÀgÉ/ 01/ 2024-25 as per Annexure-K issued by the respondent no.2 to the Petitioner in the interest of justice and equity. C. Issue consequential writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take services of the employees as per the list provided by the petitioner vide letter dated. 08.12.2024 as per annexure-c in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14670 WP No. 101914 of 2025 D. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Anoop G.Deshpande appearing for the petitioner; learned AGA T. Hanumareddy appearing for respondent No.1 – State; and the learned counsel Shri B.Sharanabasawa appearing for respondent No.2. 3. A tender is notified by respondent No.2 for securing manpower. The petitioner, an enterprise supplying manpower, emerges as the successful tenderer. 4. The work order is issued to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 communicates on 02.01.2025 its own list of employees. Therefore, the petitioner is said to have submitted a revised list on account of the pressure mounted upon it. The second respondent then communicates to the petitioner to submit the ESI and PF details of the employees that they have appointed. The non-compliance with the said direction has resulted in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner as to why the contract should not be terminated. It is at that juncture, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14670 WP No. 101914 of 2025 5. Learned counsel Shri Anoop Deshpande appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a successful bidder. He has his own team to Supply Manpower. The second respondent is insisting on its employees to be a part of the tender which is contrary to the tender conditions. He would submit that if ESI and PF authorities would not register these employees unless there is an approval list in the list granted by the second respondent. 6. Learned counsel Shri B. Sharanabasawa appearing for the second respondent would seek to defend the action of listing its employees as it is the tender for manpower, from where manpower would come is immaterial. 7. Learned AGA Shri T. Hanumareddy appearing for respondent No.1 - State would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14670 WP No. 101914 of 2025 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A tender is notified for the purpose of securing manpower. The petitioner emerges as the successful bidder. Since it was a supply of manpower, the petitioner furnished list of employees to the respondent No.2 that these are the employees would be involved in executing the contract. Another list comes in reply on 02.01.2025 including several names in the employees list. This runs counter to the tender condition. The second respondent after awarding the work to the petitioner, work of executing manpower cannot insist that its own employee should be taken by the petitioner while executing the contract. The petitioner is an independent enterprise, who has its own manpower and has been successful in the tender. After issuing work order, the indirect method of intimidating the successful tender cannot be countenanced. In that light, insistence of respondent No.2 to take its employees in place of the employees of the petitioner is untenable in law. Since every other action has sprung from the said dictate of respondent No.2, all those would become nullity. 10. Insofar as the registration of ESI and PF is concerned, learned counsel Shri B. Sharanabasawa would submit that they would only give the approval list, for the employees’ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14670 WP No. 101914 of 2025 list that is given by the petitioner and cannot issue appointment orders. Learned counsel Shri Anoop Deshpande submits that it would suffice if an approval list is given by respondent No.2. 11. In the light of the said submissions, while directing respondent No.2 cannot insist something contrary to the tender conditions, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition by the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The communication dated 25.02.2025 vide Annexure-G issued by respondent No.2 and the notice dated 01.03.2025 vide annexure-K issued by respondent No.2 stand quashed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4