- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47639 WP No. 30062 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30062 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: M/S. KBR INFRATECH INDIA LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, TATA NAGAR BALAJI LAYOUT, RMV EXTN. II STAGE PO., BANGALORE - 560 094. REP. BY ITS GM(FINANCE) SHRI BASAVARAJ G PATIL S/O G SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANA GOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BBMP-1, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47639 WP No. 30062 of 2025 STORM WATER DRIAN, R R NAGARA ZONE, 9TH FLOOR, JAYANAGARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE - 560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI FOR SETTING ASIDE THE INVITATION FOR TENDER DATED 30.07.2025 VIDE BEARING NO. EE/SWD/RRZ/TEND/01/2025-26 AND EE/SWD/DHZ/TEND/01 /2025-26 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C SERIES AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the invitation for tender dated 30.07.2025 vide bearing no.EE/SWD/RRZ/TEND /01/2025-26 and EE/SWD/DHZ/Tend/01/2025- 26 issued by Respondent No.3, produced as Annexure-C, C1 and C2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47639 WP No. 30062 of 2025 b. Grant the petitioner the costs of this proceedings. c. Pass such other order as it deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity." 2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to clause 2.1 of the tender issued by the BPMP for construction of flood protection structures to storm water drains including RCC retaining walls etc., The said clause 2.1 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "2.1 Tenderer with consistent history of court litigations or arbitration or Environmental, or social, or health or safety requirements or regulations wherein decisions against the Employers are ongoing as on 1st April 2025 are not eligible." 3. The submission of Shri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that acting on the said clause 2.1, the respondents are likely to reject the tender of the petitioner, since the petitioner had initiated an arbitral proceedings against the BBMP. 4. Shri Naveen Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the petition is premature in as much as the petition has been filed under an apprehension that the tender would be rejected. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47639 WP No. 30062 of 2025 technical evaluation would be made in a proper manner complying with the applicable requirements and as such the petition being premature is required to be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submission of both the counsels and having gone through clause 2.1, which has been extracted hereinabove, it is clear that the tender could be rejected only if there is a consistent history of court litigation or arbitration or environmental or social or health or safety requirements or regulations, wherein decision against employers is ongoing as on 01.04.2025. 6. The operative part of the said clause being consistent history, if at all there is a consistent history on the part of the petitioner, the respondents would be right in rejecting the tender submitted by the petitioner. 7. The claim of the petitioner being that there is only one arbitration proceeding, which has been initiated, the same would have to be considered by the tender evaluation committee while considering clause 2.1. 8. The tender evaluation committee is yet to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner as rightly contented by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47639 WP No. 30062 of 2025 Shri Naveen Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 9. The writ petition is premature as indicated supra. The tender evaluation committee would have to act in terms of the applicable law and in compliance with clause 2.1. Where there is a consistent history of court litigation, arbitration etc., established and while doing so, reasoned orders would have to be passed detailing the compliance with the requirement of clause 2.1. As such, the petitioner in my personal opinion cannot have any apprehension on clause 2.1 at this stage before the technical evaluation committee were to evaluate the tender submitted by the petitioner. 10. The petition being premature stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18