- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21393 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SPOORTHY INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED A PVT LTD., COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO SRI T N GANGADHAR S/O T N NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT 880 1ST FLOOR, 60 FEET MAIN ROAD, D GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANDHADAKAVAL BENGALURU - 560091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MS BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CORDIOVASCULAR Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (SJICR) AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE UNDER THE CONTROL OF GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560069 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. THE DIRECTOR SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (SJICR) BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560069. 4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (SJICR) BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560069. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING TENDER NOTIFICATION NO. SJICR/2025-26/SE0022, DATED 25.06.2025 FOR PROVIDING SECURITY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 SERVICES WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE B; 2. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING TENDER NOTIFICATION NO. SJICR/2025-26/SE0021, PROVIDING DATED 25.06.2025 FOR HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE C; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03.07.2025 WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURE D AND E AND TO ISSUE FRESH TENDER NOTIFICATIONS FOR THE SECURITY AND HOUSE KEEPING SERVICES BY STRICTLY FOLLOWING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FRAMED UNDER THE KTPP ACT FOLLOWING AND STRICTLY THE BY GUIDELINES/CIRCULARS/NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT RELATED TO TENDERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who has participated in the tenders floated by M/s. Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research [the second respondent], has called in question such Tender Notifications. The second respondent has simultaneously floated different tenders for procurement of multiple services including Housekeeping services and Security services. These services are for its Speciality Hospitals in Bengaluru and Mysuru. The tender notifications are dated 25.06.2025. It is now stated that because of the pending writ petition, technical bids are opened and the financial bids are not yet opened lest there be precipitation. 2. Sri Harshavardhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must quash the tender notifications [for housekeeping and security services] because of the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 [a] The tenders for housekeeping and security services will be for high values, and when tenders are floated for such values in terms of Rule 17[1] of the Karnataka Transparency and Public Procurement Rules 2000 [for short, 'KTPP Rules'], the minimum period between the date of application on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal and the last date for submission of the tenders must be thirty days. In the present case, though the Tender Notifications are dated 25.06.2025, they are published on the portal only on 30.06.2025 and the last date for submission is 14.07.2025. [b] The second respondent, purportedly because it is the largest Cardiac Institution in South Asia, has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 stipulated that a bidder/tenderer should have experience in offering services to a Super Speciality Hospital with bed strength of 500 at least for three years with preference being given to those bidders/tenderers who have offered such services for Cardiac Hospitals. [c] The stipulation as above is only to ensure that the current service provider continues to offer the services to the exclusion of others, and this is also seen in the parameters for evaluation with higher marks being awarded to those who have offered services for Institutions with over 500 beds with the maximum being for those who have offered services for Institutions with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 1,000 beds and the maximum is 30 marks. 3. Sri D L Jagadeesh, the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent, while inviting this Court's attention to the proceedings [as per Annexure- R2], submits that the Tender Inviting Authority has considered allowing reduced timelines given the services availed as an ongoing service. The learned Senior Counsel contends that under Rule 17[2] of the KTPP Rules, it will be open to the Tender Inviting Authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to reduce the time but not below the threshold of seven days refuting the assertion that the stipulations on experience and evaluation criteria are designed to favour the existing contractor. 4. Sri D L Jagadeesh submits that the petitioner has participated in the pre-bid meeting held on 03.07.2025 and has raised these concerns with a request for replacing the preference to those - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 who have offered services to Cardiac Hospitals with the preference to those who have offered services to MCI recognized hospitals and for replacement of the stipulation on the turnover, and these are considered and the evaluation of criteria as originally envisaged is modified. 5. 5. Sri D L Jagadeesh, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in 'Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. and Another1', submits that this Court must examine whether there should be any interference in the present circumstances of the case in the light of the exposition that the Courts do not sit in appeal over the decision of the authority floating the tender as such authority is the best judge of its requirements, and that the Court’s interference must be only when there is manifest arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, malafides or perversity in the 1 2022 SCC Online SC 1967 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 decision process. The learned Senior Counsel canvasses that because the Institutions cater to a wider populace, the eligibility terms are designed taking into consideration the services that are maintained in the Institution such as electrical sub stations, STP/ETP, pump house, A/C plant, boiler plant, MRI, medical gas unit and the other services facilities over a vast expanse of land. 6. The question of interference must be examined in the light of Rule 17 of the KTPP Rules and the exposition that is underscored on behalf of the second respondent relying upon the decision of the Apex Court as aforesaid, which would be a reiteration of the settled principles. The Rule 17 of the KTPP Rules reads as under: '17. Minimum time for submission of tenders:- (1) Tender Inviting Authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant tender Bulletin - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum period shall be as follows:- (a) For tender upto rupees two crores in value, thirty days, and (b) For tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value thirty days (2) Any reduction in the time stipulated under sub-rule (1) has to be specifically authorized by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing.' The Tender Inviting Authority as also the Chairman of the Tender Accepting Authority have decided on Short Term Tender and these reasons are recorded thus: "18. As per the approval of Director at para - 17, a draft short term Tender Notification inviting tender for keeping medical equipment on cost per reportable basis, house keeping/security services and AMC for medical & general equipment is put up for kind perusal and approval." In the context of the second respondent's circumstances and because these services are an - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 ongoing service, this Court does not opine that there is any reason for interference on the first ground especially when jurisdiction is vested under the KTPP Rules and arbitrariness obviously is not seen. 7. The petitioner has participated in the tender and that may not be a condition by itself to non-suit the petitioner as is underscored by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.10568/2025 and connected matters relying upon the decision of the Apex Court. However, for assessing whether the petitioner makes out a case for interference on the grounds of arbitrariness or irrationality or bias, this Court must record that the petitioner has participated in the pre-bid meeting on 03.07.2025, and has also succeeded in persuading the authorities to revisit the evaluation criteria in giving preference with the highest marks to those who have offered services to Cardiac Hospitals with 500 beds. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33837 WP No. 21393 of 2025 8. This Court is not persuaded to infer either arbitrariness or irrationality or bias, only because a preference is contemplated, as after a discussion with the tenderers [including the petitioner] with recalibration in the evaluation criteria that those who have offered services in cardiac hospitals are preferred. This Court is further of the view that because a particular contractor has succeeded repeatedly in itself is no reason to infer that there is any reason for bias. In the light of the afore, the petition is rejected. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-