- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13720 WP No. 6541 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6541 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: AGRYA INFRA TECH REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AJITH REDDY E AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS O/AT:# 57, COMFORT ENCLAVE 7TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PORTAL (KPPP), REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.109 GATE NO.2 M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NR SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13720 WP No. 6541 of 2026 5. BANGALORE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.30/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD MILLERS TANK BUND AREA VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONERS THROUGH E-PORTAL AND PHYSICAL MODE, EVEN DATED 13.02.2026 (ANNEXURE-A-A1) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED TENDER NORMS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, in response to a tender floated through the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal (KPPP) prescribing a two-stage evaluation process with mandatory compliance of eligibility and qualification criteria under Section III of the Request for Proposal (RFP), participated in the tender process by submitting his bid application. The petitioner contends that upon scrutiny of the bid documents submitted by one M/s. Muniyappa Enterprises, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13720 WP No. 6541 of 2026 several fundamental defects were noticed, including non- submission of the Manufacturer’s Authorisation in the prescribed Annexure-II format, absence of the requisite OEM authorisation, and failure to satisfy the mandatory financial turnover criteria stipulated in the tender conditions. Having noticed these alleged deficiencies in the competing bid, the petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act before the second respondent – Appellate Authority, in respect of both Package-2 and Package-5. 2. The petitioner contends that he is constrained to approach this Court alleging inaction on the part of the Appellate Authority. According to the petitioner, despite having preferred an appeal before the second respondent, the same has not been adjudicated, while the tender process is continuing. The petitioner therefore asserts that the failure of respondent No.2 to consider and decide the appeal has caused serious prejudice to his claim and that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13720 WP No. 6541 of 2026 unless the appeal is decided, the petitioner’s rights in the tender process would stand adversely affected. On these grounds, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The records further indicate that the petitioner has not only preferred the appeal through the online portal but has also submitted a physical copy of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. 4. The Appellate Authority, while exercising powers under the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, discharges functions of a quasi-judicial nature in matters relating to tender disputes. When an appeal is preferred by a participating bidder questioning the validity of the tender process or the eligibility of competing bidders, the Appellate Authority is required to consider and decide such appeal with due promptitude. The Appellate Authority cannot keep the appeal pending for an indefinite period - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13720 WP No. 6541 of 2026 and, at the same time, permit the tendering authority to proceed further and conclude the tender process, as such inaction would render the statutory remedy of appeal illusory and cause serious prejudice to the aggrieved bidder. 5. Learned AGA submits that the appeal pending before respondent no.2 will be expedited and decided within a time frame. Recording the said submission, this Court passes the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. Respondent No.2 – Appellate Authority is hereby directed to take up the appeal preferred by the petitioner and dispose of the same forthwith, and in any event within an outer limit of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13720 WP No. 6541 of 2026 iii. It is made clear that any further action proposed or undertaken by the tendering authorities in relation to the subject tender shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal to be decided by respondent No.2. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14