- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.200382 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SREE VENKATESHWAR TRADING AND TRANSPORT COMPANY AFZALPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ASHOK S. JAMADAR AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BAZAR ROAD, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, TALAKERI, AFZALPUR, DIST : KALBURAGI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DESHPANDE G.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI AND CHAIRMAN TENDER EVALUATION SAMITI, KALABURAGI, DIST- KALABURAGI – 585 102. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT MINI VIDAHAN SOUDHA Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 KALABURAGI – 585 102. 4. M/S LINGRAJ S BUKKE TRANSPORT ALAND THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR LINGRAJ S/O SAYBANNA BUKKE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO.2477, NEAR KAESHA MASJID HATYAN GALLI, ALAND, DIST : KALABURAGI – 585 302. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS I) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31-01-2025, IN FILE NUMBER AAHAR/LEKKA/20/2024-26 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 INSOFAR AS HOLDING/DECLARING RESPONDENT NO.4 AT SL NO.1 NAMELY M/S. SRI LINGARAJ S.BUKKE TRANSPORT COMPANY, ALAND AS ELIGIBLE FOR THE TENDER PROCESS AND SELECTED IN TECHNICAL BID, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G AND II) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TENDER COMMITTEE/ RESPONDENT NO.1 TO DECLARE THE TENDER APPLICATION OF RESPONDENT NO.4 AS DISQUALIFIED AS PER TENDER DISQUALIFICATION CONDITIONS AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. This petition is filed to quash the order dated 31.01.2025 marked at Annexure-G wherein the Tender Evaluation Committee has held that 4th respondent is eligible for technical bid. The relief is also sought to issue writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 - Tender Evaluation Committee to declare tender application of respondent No.4 as invalid on the premise that 4th respondent has incurred disqualifications as per the conditions prescribed in the tender notification. 3. On 23.08.2024, 2nd respondent issued notification and quoted the tender inviting applications from the interested parties to participate in E-tender covering the period from 2024-2026 to transport food grains from certain godowns to fair price shops. The petitioner participated in the tender - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 process and submitted the bid for Chittapur and Chincholi taluks. 4th respondent also participated in the bid and he applied for Chittapur and Kalaburagi. In terms of impugned order at Annexure-G, the Tender Evaluation Committee has held that 4th respondent is eligible for technical bid. In terms of Annexure-C dated 30.10.2024 the Committee has held that the petitioner is also eligible in technical bid for Chincholi and Kalaburagi and also for the Chincholi and Chittapur talukas. 4. It appears that one of the applicants in the said tender process has filed an appeal against the order at Annexure-G qualifying 4th respondent in the technical bid and in terms of impugned order at Annexure-G, the appellate authority has taken a view that 4th respondent is eligible in the technical bid and directed the Tender Evaluation Committee to reconsider the appellant’s case in the said appeal along with 4th respondent. 5. Though the impugned order is appealable, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the appellate authority taken a view that 4th respondent is eligible. It is further stated by learned Senior Counsel that 4th respondent is disqualified to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 participate in the tender as 4th respondent’s son holding the licence issued by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee which is one of the grounds for disqualification in terms of tender notification. In addition to that a criminal case is filed against the owner of the lorry whose services before 4th respondent is availed which is a ground for disqualification in terms of the tender notification. 6. Learned counsel for 4th respondent on the other hand would contend that the criminal case is not filed in respect of the lorry which 4th respondent has availed from the owner of the lorry, as such, the said disqualification does not apply. In addition to that he would also submit that the son of 4th respondent has separated from the family of 4th respondent and they are no longer the members of the same family and on that score the disqualification does not apply to 4th respondent. 7. In addition, it is also submitted that the son of 4th respondent has surrendered the licence issued by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and since the licence is surrendered the disqualification does not apply. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 8. This court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. The clause No.5 of the tender notification deals with disqualification. Sub-clause(v) and (vi) of said clause-5 are relevant for the discussion and they read as under: “v. The employees of state FCS & CA department, KFCSC Ltd. Central FCS Government, Food Department related agencies and their relatives should not participate in the tender, and also the bidders and their family members should not be owning Fair price depot, APMC foodgrains Traders and rice or wheat flour mills. Bidder has to submit the affidavit for the same. vi. It is clarified that the TAPCMS can participate in the tender provided that they surrender both the authorization of wholesale depot and fair price depot once the tender is awarded.” 10. In terms of sub-clause (v) of Clause-5, the bidders or their family members should not be owning Fair price depot, APMC foodgrains traders licence and rice or wheat flour mills. Bidders have to submit the affidavit for the same. In terms of clause(vi) it is stated that TAPCMS i.e., Taluka Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society can participate in the tender provided that they surrender both the authorization of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 wholesale depot and fair price depot once the tender is awarded. 11. As can be noticed from the aforementioned two clauses the person holding APMC foodgrains Tranders licence is disqualified to apply for the tender. Admitted factual position is that the son of 4th respondent was holding APMC licence when he applied for the tender. Though it is contended that he has surrendered the licence after acceptance of technical bid, it is noticed that clause(v) does not provide for surrender of such licence. The surrender of licence is provided in sub-clause(v) and that sub-clause(v) is applicable only in case TAPCMS participating in the tender process and surrender is permitted only in respect of wholesale depot and fair price depot licence and not any other licence which are referred to in sub- clause(v). 12. Though learned counsel for 4th respondent would contend that 4th respondent’s son has separated from the family five years ago and he is no longer a family member, The ration card produced in the connected case in W.P.No.200361/2025 would reveal that the separate ration - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 card is issued after acceptance of the finding bid. Under these circumstances, finding for the purpose of this case would be that as on the date of the application filed by 4th respondent that his son was residing with him and he was the family member. This being the position, 4th respondent who is admittedly having APMC licence is disqualified under sub- clause(v) to participate in the tender. 13. Learned counsel Sri Sachin M. Mahajan appearing for 4th respondent would contend that the relaxation given in clause(v) should also be applied to all persons who are coming under sub-clause(v). He would also submitted that he did not have the opportunity to question the validity of the said clauses as the order was in his favour. Thus, he would urge that harmonious interpretation should be given to the said clauses to enable the 4th respondent to have the benefit of the relaxation provided in sub-clause(vi). 14. This court has considered the said contention. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the validity of the clauses in the tender notification when 4th respondent applied for the tender. 4th respondent could have questioned the validity of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1570 WP No. 200382 of 2025 the said clauses simultaneously when he applied for the tender. On a plain reading of sub clause-(vi), there is nothing to indicate that the benefit of sub-clause-(v) should also be extended to the person coming under sub-clause(vi). No case is made out for such harmonious interpretation in the petition filed challenging the order, based on the terms and conditions of the tender notification. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 15. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The acceptance of 4th respondent’s technical bid is held to be invalid in view of the disqualification of 4th respondent. The respondent – Tender Evaluation Committee shall proceed further in accordance tender notification. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27