- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46600 WP No. 32283 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32283 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: M/S THARU AND SONS 2ND FLOOR, KALAMASSERY, NEAR METRO PILLAR NO.250, KALAMASSERY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA-683 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP DEED ACT, MANAGING PARTNER SHRI.ANTONY THARU …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BAPAT SAMPATH VINAYAKA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY RAIL SADAN, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALI-20 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, 18, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-46 3. M/S LEOTECH PROCESS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT, REP MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.10-26, RAMALAYAM STREET, ENIKEPADU, VIJAYAWADA-520 008 4. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION OLD GGH CAMPUS, HANUMANPET VIJAYAWADA-500 047, A.P …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46600 WP No. 32283 of 2025 (BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI.S.VASUDEVA NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT AWARDING OF SLA BEARING NO.GEMC-511687773776475 DATED 24.10.2025 IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K IS CONTRARY TO TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA PRESCRIBED UNDER CLAUSE 2.6.1.1 OF THE TENDER DOCUMENTS AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THAT 3RD RESPONDENT IS INELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TENDER BEARING NO.GEM/2025/B/6566649 DATED 13.8.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that awarding of SLA bearing No.GEMC-511687773776475 dated 24.10.2025 in favour of the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure-K is contrary to technical eligibility criteria prescribed under Clause 2.6.1.1 of the tender documents and consequently declare that 3rd Respondent is ineligible to participate in the tender bearing No.Gem/2025/B/6566649 dated 13.8.2025 vide Annexure-A. b) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to evaluate the financial bid by ignoring bid submitted by the 3rd Respondent in finalising the tender bearing No.GEM/2025/B/6566649 dated 13.8.2025 vide Annexure-A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46600 WP No. 32283 of 2025 c) Pass such and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Respondent No.2 had floated a tender on 13.08.2025 for the collection, washing and ironing of bedroll linen supplied to AC coach passengers in various trains with packing of P1 set of washed and ironed bedroll in eco-friendly cover. The estimated value of the bid was Rs.54,43,36,918.60. The bidders were required to provide turnover certificate which would also be considered as a part of the technical eligibility criteria inasmuch as Clause 2.6.1.1 of the tender document provided that the bidder should have satisfactorily completed in the last three previous financial years and the current financial year up to the date of opening of tender, one similar single service contract for a minimum of 35% of the advertised value of the bid. 3. It is on Respondent No.3 having been declared the successful bidder, the Petitioner who is the existing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46600 WP No. 32283 of 2025 contractor and L2 bidder is before this Court challenging the same on the ground that the technical criteria has not been met by Respondent No.3 inasmuch as the works which had been carried out by Respondent No.3 for Medical Education Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, was a composite work of purchase, supply of linen, establishment of mechanised laundry and washing services. The present contract being only for washing, a contract given as reference point is not a similar one which could be taken into consideration. 4. Sri Bapat Sampath Vinayaka Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that: 4.1. A query having been raised by Respondent No.2, Respondent No.4, by its letter dated 13.09.2025, has given a split of the figure of the value of the bill passed into the purchase of the supply of linen and the value of mechanised laundry. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46600 WP No. 32283 of 2025 4.2. His submission is that the value of mechanised laundry would include the establishment of mechanised laundry and washing services. If that be so, the question of Respondent satisfying the requirement of Clause 2.6.1.1 of the tender document would not arise, and as such, Respondent No.3 is required to be disqualified and a tender to be allotted to the Petitioner, who is the L2 tenderer. 5. Sri.Chandrachud A., learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that: 5.1. All these aspects have been taken into consideration. The figure of value of mechanised laundry which has been provided is only as regards the laundry services offered and taking into consideration the quantum of laundry services offered, Respondent No.3 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46600 WP No. 32283 of 2025 satisfies the technical criteria under Clause 2.6.1.1 of the tender document. 5.2. His further submission is that a letter of intent has already been issued, and the work is progressing in terms of the letter of intent. 6. Sri S. Vasudeva Naidu, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that: 6.1. Even in the present contract, Respondent No.3, the successful bidder, would have to establish laundry services and charge for the laundry work completed. Insofar as the work done for the Government of Andhra Pradesh, laundry has been established by Respondent No.3 but the bills have been raised for only the services provided and the capital expenses are to the account of Respondent No.3. 7. Heard Sri.Bapat Sampath Vinayaka Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.Chandrachud A, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46600 WP No. 32283 of 2025 Sri.S. Vasudeva Naidu, learned counsel for Respondent No3. Perused papers. 8. This is yet another case where the existing contractor has sought to continue his contract by challenging a fresh bid which has been received by the employer. The tender being for a sum of ₹54,43,36,918.60, 35% of that value being the technical requirement comes to roughly around 19,00,00,000/-, whereas as per the certificate issued by Respondent No.4, Respondent No.3 has carried out mechanised laundry works and raised bills for the last 3 years and present year amounting roughly around Rs.82 crores, which is more than 4 times the minimum requirement of 35% of Rs.19 crores. 9. The attempts made by the Petitioner to try and split hairs as regards the establishment of mechanised laundry and laundry services also do not hold any water inasmuch as any bidder would also have to set up mechanised laundry for the purpose of carrying - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46600 WP No. 32283 of 2025 out the washing activities. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1