- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51244-DB WA No. 491 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. M/S G.S. MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRI YASHONANDAN P HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1091 2ND FLOOR, SRNG, SAMPANNAPPA CHARITIES OTC ROAD, NAGARATHPET BENGALURU - 560 002 …APPELLANT (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI DEEPAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE #1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE #1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51244-DB WA No. 491 of 2025 3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU CITY - 560 001 4. BVG INDIA LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND A 'COMPANY' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT: BVG HOUSE, PREMIER PLAZA PUNE-MUMBAI ROAD, CHINCHWAD PUNE MAHARASHTRA - 411 019 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT: BVG HOUSE, NO.47 MILLERS TANK BUND ROAD VASANTHNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 052 5. MERU INFO SOLUTIONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: NO.07 2ND FLOOR, OUTER RING ROAD NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 072 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. SRIDHAR KRISHNANIAH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3, SRI MANU P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI ABHILASH VAIDYANATHAN, ADVOCATE, SRI SAMJYOR LEPCHA ADVOCATES FOR R-4 & SRI VISHWAS S.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51244-DB WA No. 491 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO W.P. No.31594/2024, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE ORAL ORDER DATED 04/02/2025 TO THE EXTENT OF QUASHING OF TENDER DOCUMENTS AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE SAID PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.31594/2024 (GM-TEN). 2. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning a corrigendum dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure-C) and to permit it, if eligible, to participate in the tender on the basis of the original tender notification. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51244-DB WA No. 491 of 2025 3. Respondent No.1 had issued a Request for Proposal [RFP] for "Providing Call Takers and Supervisory Staff for 24 x 7 Dial-112 Command Center at Bengaluru City Police Commissionerate". The proposal was required to be submitted under two covers. Initially, the eligibility criteria, as stipulated in the RFP required the eligible bidders to have achieved a minimum annual turnover of Rs.10 crores in any of the three years out of the preceding five years in respect of operating a Call Center and/or Manpower Services/Operations. Subsequently, the eligibility criteria was altered by issuing a corrigendum, which enhanced the aforesaid turnover criterion to minimum Rs.18 crores during any of the two years in the preceding five years. The eligibility criteria required that the tenderer should have liquid funds in the form of cash in hand/cash at Bank/Bank Deposits/Mutual Funds or available Overdraft limit to the extent of Rs.2.50 crores as on 31.03.2024. This was to meet the expenditure on account of salary obligations of atleast 3 months. The said condition was altered to the extent that the investments in mutual funds were excluded. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51244-DB WA No. 491 of 2025 4. It is material to note that the pre-bid meeting was held prior to issuance of the corrigendum. The last date and time for submission of tender was fixed on 11.11.2024 at 05.00 p.m. 5. The appellant participated in the said tender and submitted its bid pursuant to the notification dated 25.10.2024. However, thereafter, challenged the corrigendum. 6. The learned Single Judge had noted that in terms of Clause 1.6 of the tender document, the Tender Inviting Authority-whether on their own initiative or in response to the queries posed by the bidders-was entitled to modify the RFP document by a corrigendum. However, it appears that the said contention was not accepted. 7. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the technical bids were evaluated and the financial bids were open. The appellant was declared as the lowest bidder (LI). During the course of the proceedings, a reference was made to a document called 'K/W-4', which is stated to be a standard document, which also prescribed the qualifications regarding minimum financial turnover. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51244-DB WA No. 491 of 2025 8. The learned Single Judge held that although the corrigendum had been issued, document K/W-4 had not been referred to. 9. After considering the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge held that the if the Tender Inviting Authority was of the opinion that changes were required to be brought to the tender document, as some of the bidders would stand excluded, it was necessary for respondent No.3 to recall the tender and issue a fresh tender incorporating all conditions to meet the requirements of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. 10. The respondents did not appeal the said decision. In this view, we do not consider it apposite to examine the question whether the Tender Inviting Authority had the jurisdiction to issue a corrigendum. This Court is also informed that pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, a fresh tender was called and the appellant had participated in the said tender by submitting its bid. The said tender was evaluated and the successful tenderer has since been awarded the contract. 11. Thus in the given circumstances, the earlier tender/corrigendum cannot be restored. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51244-DB WA No. 491 of 2025 12. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 13. Pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8