Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14144 (KAR)

M/S WISDOM SECURITY SERVICES v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

WP/6997/2025 · 2026-02-09

B M Shyam Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7466 WP No. 6997/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: M/S WISDOM SECURITY SERVICES R/O NO.106, 1ST FLOOR, 40 FEET ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD MANJUNATHANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 010 REPT. BY ITS CEO P. HARSHITH …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH R.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER - 1 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7466 WP No. 6997/2025 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION NO.IADB/ENGG/ OUTSOURCE/ETND-EP-01/1054/2023-24 DATED 13.03.2024 IN RESPECT OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-2 AND SLO-2 OF KIADB, BENGALURU ZONE AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-3 OF KIADB, BENGALURU ZONE UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND A1 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7466 WP No. 6997/2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the Tender Notification dated 13.03.2024 issued by M/s. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to secure manpower. Mr. P. V. Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, contends that Work Orders have been issued to L1 bidders way back in February 2025 and therefore the petition is rendered infructuous. The learned counsel submits that even if the petitioner could canvas grievance, it must avail remedy under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Act, 1999. This Court finds these submissions formidable and the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner subject to all just exceptions in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB