- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25010 WP No. 4100 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 4100 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR S.N. S/O SHASHIDAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEHARU COLONY SHIKARIKAPPA, DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA. PIN CODE NO.577 428 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SAGAR B B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAMOGGA DAVANAGERE AND CHITRADURGA ZILLA SAHAKARA HALU UTPADAKARA OKKUTA NIYAMITHA MACHENAHALLI, NIDIGI POST, SHIVAMOGGA-577 222 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER CO-OPERATIVES SOCIETIES ACT. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DAYANAND S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25010 WP No. 4100 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED INTERNET COMMUNICATION PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT THE TENDER BEARING NO. KMF/2024-25/SE2601 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the communication at Annexure-E. 2. The facts made out are that the respondent authority had floated tender inviting bids from the prospective tenderers for supplying milk powder within the Taluks. 3. The petitioner had participated in the said tender process and has made his bid which during the evaluation of the tender admittedly was L1 i.e., the lowest bid. The bid of the petitioner was priced at 0.24 paise per Kilogram for transport of milk powder. The petitioner submits that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25010 WP No. 4100 of 2025 the bid of the petitioner came to be ignored and the tender proceedings itself was dropped. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that a perusal of the statement of objections filed by the respondent-authority would indicate that the price at which the petitioner had made offer for transport of milk powder was unrealistic according to the respondent. The petitioner submits that clearly the petitioner had bonafide intention of supplying the milk powder however, the respondents have cancelled the tender process itself. 5. The legal contentions raised are that the tender proceedings are governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and in terms of Section 14, there could be no rejection of the tender except on the ground of change of scope of procurement, failure of anticipated financial resource, accidents, calamities or any other ground as may be prescribed which would render the procurement - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25010 WP No. 4100 of 2025 unnecessary or impossible and report the same to the Procurement Entity. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent relies on the statement of objections and particularly with respect to the averments at para 6 and submits that price quoted by the petitioner was unrealistic. It is further submitted that the respondent-authority was not in a position to take the risk of non-performance midway which would affect the supply of milk powder. 7. Heard both sides. 8. It is to be noticed that undisputedly, the bid of the petitioner was L1 and the tender proceedings being governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 ('KTPP Act', for short) the statutory provision relating to power conferred for rejection of tenders is contained in Section 14. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25010 WP No. 4100 of 2025 9. Section 14 of the KTPP Act of 1999 reads as follows: "14. General rejection of tenders.- 1. The Tender Accepting Authority may at any time before passing an order of acceptance under Section 13 reject all the tenders on the ground of changes in the scope of procurement, failure of anticipated financial resource, accidents, calamities or any other ground as may be prescribed which would render the procurement unnecessary or impossible and report the same to the Procurement Entity. 2. The Procurement Entity shall thereafter communicate the fact of the rejection under this section to all the Tenderers and also cause the same to be published in the “the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal.” 10. If the objective of the provisions of KTPP Act of 1999 is to ensure objectivity and lack of transparency, rejection of tender ought to be strictly in terms of Section 14. However, it cannot be stated that the authority which has the power to reject the tender under specified grounds may not abandon the tender process itself. Such powers continues to be with the authority floating the tender. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25010 WP No. 4100 of 2025 11. Insofar as the contention that the bid was found to be wanting as it was unrealistic offer, the same is supported by the resolution of the Society at Annexure-R3. The resolution at Annexure-R3 reads as follows: "«.¸ÀA.32 452£Éà ¸À¨sÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:31.12.2024 oÀgÁªÀÅ ¸ÀASÉå:26/452£Éà DªÀÄA¸À/2024 zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ J¯Áè vÁ®ÆèQ£À ¸ÀPÁðj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ±Á¯ÉUÀ½UÉ PɣɨsÀjvÀ ºÁ®£À ¥ÀÅrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß, ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä 02 ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ/¨ÁrUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÁºÀ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÀAUÀæºÀuÉUÀ¼À°è ¥ÁgÀzÀ±ÀðPÀvÉ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÉÇÃlð¯ï£Àr mÉQßPÀ¯ï/PÀªÀĶðAiÀÄ¯ï ©qï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ L.J¥sï.n.¸ÀASÉå/ ²zÁa¸ÀºÁM /ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ /QëÃ.¨sÁ /mÉAqÀgï /5264 / 2024-25 ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.10.2024 gÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀn¸À¯ÁzÀ mÉAqÀgï£À°è J¯ï1 mÉAqÀgïzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.¥Àæ«Ãuï PÀĪÀiÁgï J¸ï.JA EªÀgÀÄ ¥Àæw PÉ.f ºÁ°£À ¥ÀÅrUÉ gÀÆ.0.24/- ¥ÉʸÉAiÀÄAvÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ zÀgÀªÀÅ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀzÀ°è ªÁºÀ£À ªÉZÀÑ, PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ ªÉZÀÑ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæw Q.«ÄÃUÉ G½vÁAiÀĪÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¯Á¨sÁA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¹zÁUÀ CªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀ zÀgÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ WÀ£À PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥Àæw¶×vÀ QëÃgÀ¨sÁUÀå AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀªÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj mÉAqÀgï C£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ CUÀvÀå §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉƸÀ mÉAqÀgï PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25010 WP No. 4100 of 2025 DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ° ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ M¦à ªÀÄÄA¢£À CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄ«qÀ®Ä ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀjUÉ C¢üPÁgÀ ¤ÃrvÀÄ. ¸À»/- ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ(DqÀ½vÀ) PÀæªÀÄ:M(Mktg)" 12. This read with the averments at para 6 of the statement of objections would indicate that the authority was of the view that the offer was impracticable. 13. The court would not enter into the correctness of the decision making authority which is the sole judge of suitability or otherwise. On this ground, the court declines to exercise judicial review in the matter which includes certain technical aspects including suitability of the offer. 14. Accordingly, the petition is rejected subject to the above observations. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP