- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37184 WP No. 28258 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28258 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: KRAFT SPECIALITY PAPER A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE PRESENTLY AT, ETA STAR GARDEN APT. NO. 9, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, OPP: ANGALAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, KP AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560023. REP. BY ITS PARTNER, KUNNAL DEVNANI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HIRAN KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37184 WP No. 28258 of 2025 MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHA GANGOTHRI MYSORE 57006 3. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERISITY MUKTHA GANGOTRI MYSORE 570006 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER STATIONERY DIVISION MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED NO 36, MSIL HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALULRU 560052 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION ORDER BEARING NO.KSOU/EXAM SECTION /STATIONERY DIVISION 2.2/2025-26 DTD 8.07.2025 PASSED BY THE R-3 ANNX-A AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37184 WP No. 28258 of 2025 CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE SUPPLY ORDER DTD 5.04.2025 ANNX-J, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING ON. KSOU/2025-26/IND0004 PUBLISHED ON 11.08.2025 ANNX-B ISSUED BY R3. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is empanelled with the fourth respondent to whom the third respondent has issued work order for printing and supply of main answer booklets. The petitioner's grievance is as against the third respondent's decision to cancel the work order issued to the fourth respondent and to issue fresh tender. Mr. Hiran Krishnaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because as could be seen from the fourth respondent's communication, third respondent has very unjustifiably cancelled the work order and has issued the impugned tender notification. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37184 WP No. 28258 of 2025 The question: whether there must be interference is examined from the perspective of the petitioner's locus. The petitioner is only an empanelled vendor with the fourth respondent and can only claim under this respondent as there can be no privity of contract or any association otherwise with the third respondent. As such, this Court opines that at the petitioner’s instance there can be interference neither with the work order nor the tender notification and the petitioner must pursue remedies against the fourth respondent if there is cause for the same. With all just liberties in that regard, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB