- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33429-DB WA No. 1421 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1421 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: VIGNESHWARA TRANSPORT, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. G. S. TULSIPRASAD, S/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA G.A, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT GULLAHALLI, CHANNRAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SOURABH R. K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, ROOM NO. 18, GROUND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, KARNATAKA SAHAKAR MARATHA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33429-DB WA No. 1421 of 2025 3. FAAZ TRANSPORT, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. IMRAN BAIG, MANGLVADI VILLAGE, HOLENARSIPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 563 210. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S HARISH, G.A FOR R-1 & 2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.22025/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ETC. 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 JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 13.08.2025 [impugned order] passed in Writ Petition No.22025/2025 [GM-TEN], whereby, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the drawing up of lots, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant had not objected to the same at the material time. 2. The dispute in the present case arises in respect of a tender for Transportation of Foodgrains and other items by road, from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33429-DB WA No. 1421 of 2025 KFCSC/ TAPCMS and other Wholesale Nominee Godowns to Fair Price Depots, including loading, unloading and arranging in Stack formation at the Fair Price Depots. The estimated unit rate was indicated at ₹44.77 per quintal and the bidders were required to furnish their bids with a variation of plus or minus 10% of the estimated unit rate. Seven [07] bidders had submitted the lowest rate of ₹42.99 [Rupees Forty Two and Paisa Ninety Nine only], per quintal which was less than 10% of the estimated unit rate. In order to decide the winning bidder, the Joint Director had informed the bidders that the L-1 would be selected by way of random selection of lots, to be picked up by respondent No. 2. 3. The said selection was done at 12.00 pm on 16.07.2025 and the entire process was recorded. All the bidders were shown the names on the slips and then the slips were folded and dropped in a box. Respondent No. 2 had selected one of the lots from the box and informed the parties that the same reflected the name of respondent No. 3. 4. The appellant has no objection relating to the manner in which the lots were made. However, it is appellant's case that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33429-DB WA No. 1421 of 2025 winning lot had not been shown to all the bidders and merely, the name of respondent No.3 had been read out after the draw of lots. 5. The appellant contends that there is a possibility of tampering of the draw of lots, as the name on the winning lot may not have been that of respondent No. 3, but that of any other bidder. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that to ensure full transparency, the winning lot was required to be displayed to all the bidders. 6. Whilst there is merit in the contention that the selected lot ought to have been disclosed to all the bidders, we are unable to accept that the draw of lots requires any interference by this Court at this stage. This is because none of the parties had raised any objections in this regard at the material time. It is well settled that unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the process after participating in it. We consider it apposite to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd. : (2022) 6 SCC 401. "44. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a grave error in holding Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 are patently illegal, more particularly, in the absence of any challenge to the same and also on the ground that once the original writ petitioner participated having knowledge of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33429-DB WA No. 1421 of 2025 aforesaid clauses in ITB, thereafter it was not open for the original writ petitioner to challenge the same. The original writ petitioner was knowing right from the very beginning with respect to the confidentiality clause contained in Clause 28 and that grounds on which the bids of unsuccessful bidders are not selected shall be communicated only after a final decision to award the contract is communicated under Clause 42. If the original writ petitioner was aggrieved either it would not have participated and/or ought to have challenged such clauses before participating in the tender process. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order [Montecarlo Ltd. v. National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2021) 3 HCC (Del) 494] passed by the High Court holding Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 as patently illegal cannot sustain and the same also deserves to be quashed and set aside." [emphasis added] 7. In view of the above, we concur with the decision of the learned Single Judge declining interference in the selection of lots. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32