- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 976 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. ESTHUR NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE MATHAPPA R/AT: ISTOOR VILLAGE BENDIGANAHALLI POST HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114 …APPELLANT (BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SAKSHI M. KRISHNA ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ROOM NO. 448, 4TH FLOOR GATE NO. 2, M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. KARNATAKA STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VANA VIKAS, 2ND FLOOR 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003 3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD NEAR RTO OFFICE, DC COMPOUND SHIVAMOGGA – 577201 4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE VANA VIKAS, 2ND FLOOR 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R-1 SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, A.G. / SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENTS Nos.2 TO 4) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.39669/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a common order dated 24.02.2026 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in a set of six writ petitions including W.P.No.39669/2025 (GM-TEN). 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order insofar as it relates to his W.P.No.39669/2025. The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, impugning a re-tender notification dated 26.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2, calling for fresh bids for extraction and transportation of Eucalyptus, Casuarina and Subabool Pulpwood from various plantations within the Bangalore Division. 3. The appellant is, essentially, aggrieved by the cancellation of an earlier tender process initiated vide e-tender notification dated 08.11.2025. The appellant had participated in the said bidding process and claims that he was the lowest bidder (L1) in respect of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 number of units (plantations) in the Bangalore Division and thus was entitled to be awarded the contract for the same. 4. The respondents state that they had cancelled the said tender notification, inter alia, on various grounds including that the tenders submitted were unscientific and the bids submitted were collusive. 5. The appellant contested the same and claims that the tender notification has been cancelled on account of collusion between the officials of respondent No.2 and other rival contractors to prevent the contract being awarded to the appellant. 6. The learned Single Judge did not accept that the decision to cancel the notification dated 08.11.2025 inviting tenders, was arbitrary. The court declined to interfere with the said decision and, Writ Petition No.39669/2025 and other connected writ petitions were party allowed. The notification dated 26.12.2025, which were impugned in the said writ petitions were set aside and the respondent No.2 was directed to re-issue the tender notification calling for fresh bids for the specified divisions including the Bengaluru division. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 7. At the outset it is material to note that the appellant has participated in the re-tendering process and submitted fresh bids, albeit without prejudice to his rights and contentions. 8. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that on 08.11.2025, respondent No.2 had issued e-tender notification for extraction and transportation of eucalyptus, casuarina and subabool pulpwood from various plantations within the Bangalore division for the year 2025-26. The bidding process involved two-cover bids system, comprising technical and financial bids. After issuance of the tender notification, pre-bid meeting was held on 14.11.2025. It is stated that thereafter respondent No.2 added additional qualification criteria of furnishing a three years experience certificate in pulpwood extraction and issued an Addendum and Corrigendum dated 21.11.2025 extending the deadline for furnishing the bids to 06.12.2025. 9. The appellant claims that he had obtained the requisite experience confirmation certificate and furnished his bids before the deadline to furnish the same. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 10. There was a delay in opening of the technical bids and the appellant filed a representation dated 09.12.2025 protesting against the same. 11. In the meanwhile, one of the bidders (Mr. Praveen Kumar) filed a writ petition being W.P.No.36337/2025, challenging the criteria of furnishing an experience certificate. The said petition was partly allowed by an order dated 10.12.2025 and the said contractor was permitted to furnish his bid in physical format. 12. Thereafter, the technical bids were opened and the appellant was found to be technically qualified. This was followed by opening of the financial bids and the appellant claims that his bids were the lowest in respect to certain plantations (forest ranges). However, the contract was not awarded to the appellant and subsequently, on 26.12.2025 a re-tender notification was issued, whereby the earlier tender process was cancelled. As noted above, the appellant challenged the same by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by the impugned order. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was no basis for holding that the bids - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 submitted by the appellant were unscientific, and therefore, the decision to cancel the earlier tender process was arbitrary and unreasonable. He submitted that respondents had not filed any statement of objections to the averments made in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge erred in accepting that there was any rational basis for cancelling the earlier tender notification. 14. He handed over an affidavit affirmed by the Executive Director (Pulpwood Wing) of the respondent No.2 - Corporation, affirmed on 02.02.2026, in another writ petition (W.P.No.40/2026) and drew our attention to paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, which is set out below: "4. I submit that after opening the financial bids pertaining to all the 4 divisions, i.e., Chikkamagaluru Division on 08.12.2025, Shivamogga & Dharwad Division on 09.12.2025 & Bengaluru Division on 20.12.2025, I noticed that the rates quoted by the participants were unscientific and it was prima facie found that the tenderers have colluded amongst themselves. While the tender rates were exorbitantly higher in case of Chikkamaglore and Shimoga Divisions, the tender rates were unreasonably lower in case of Bangalore division. On perusal of the financial bids as a whole, it was seen that prima facie, the entire bidding result was not genuine and fair. It became apparent that there had been a collusion between the bidders who had participated in the tender, on account of the vastly irrational financial bid submitted by the bidders. It is submitted that the financial bid, especially in terms of the cutting and loading charges that have been quoted by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 bidders in the tender have been rigged and devised to their benefit." 15. He submitted that there was no ground set out for assuming that the rates quoted were unscientific or that there was any collusion between the bidders. He referred to the English translation of certain extracts from the proceedings which led to the proposal for cancellation of the tender and submits that the only ground set out is that the rates quoted by the contractors are lower than those quoted in the last year which indicates that the contractors may have made certain adjustments in the rates and the same were unscientific. He submitted that merely quoting lower rates could not be construed as unscientific. 16. He drew our attention to Annexure-E to the writ petition, which is a comparative statement setting out the rates quoted by the tenderers. He also referred to the rates quoted by the contractors for Koramangala plantation and submitted that there was no anomaly in the rates that were furnished. The tabular statement indicated that the appellant had quoted an amount of `757/- for extraction, debarking and loading at plantation site; `1697/- for extraction of eucalyptus pulpwood, transporting to HPF, Kumarapattanam; and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 `1999/- for extraction of eucalyptus pulpwood, transporting to WCPM, Dandeli. He reiterated that the said rates could not be considered as unscientific. 17. The learned Advocate General stoutly contested the statements made on behalf of the appellant. He stated that the submission of the appellant that the respondents had not filed any statement of objections to the writ petition is erroneous. He submitted that the appellant had suppressed the same and deliberately not filed a copy of the statement of objections. He also submitted that Annexure-E as referred to by the appellant had not been issued by the respondents, it was a document somehow procured by the appellant and the respondents have already initiated action against the erring officers who had allegedly furnished the same. 18. This Court had pointedly asked the learned Senior Counsel as to whether the appellant had any communication of the officials forwarding the said document. However, no satisfactory answer was forthcoming. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 19. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to the following extract of the impugned order, which, inter alia, sets out the reasons for rejecting the appellant’s challenge to the decision to cancel the notification dated 08.11.2025. "11.5 The Apex Court has stipulated that the judicial review should be limited to examining whether the reasons assigned for cancellation are the true motivation behind such a decision and that it is not because of any ulterior motive of irrelevant consideration. The petitioners assert that the quote of a lesser price for transportation to the farthest factories is only because of business reasons such as their ability to get assignments to transport on the return journey, but this Court is persuaded to opine that the reasons, as illustrated, are relevant and some motive must be inferred only because the petitioners can offer some explanation. The petitioners do not specifically allege any specific ulterior motive in the Corporation's decision to cancel the earlier Notifications. 11.6 The petitioner in W.P.No.39669/2025 asserts that he is consistent in quoting rates for extraction, debarking with and without transportation relying upon the details furnished in Annexure-E. The Corporation contends that Annexure E is not issued by its office. Crucially, the petitioner does not dispute that he has mentioned additional rates and that these rates are lower than rates that he has quoted for the tendered work with transportation and without transportation. The petitioner asserts that he has offered these rates to purchase timber, but it is undisputed that the earlier Notifications [for Bangalore or the other Divisions] do not require the tenderers to offer rates for purchasing the extracted pulpwood at the Plantation units. The petitioner has introduced an - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 extraneous element resulting in the opinion that the price offered even by this petitioner is unscientific. 11.7 This petitioner asserts that the Corporation cannot deny that his offer will be the lowest for the respective Plantation Units if the rates offered by him to purchase the extracted pulpwood at the Plantation Units are excluded, and that if the earlier Notifications are recalled when he has quoted the lowest rates, he would be put to hardship. This Court has considered these aspects as well to consider should this petitioner be given any advantage despite quoting rates for purchase which are outside the earlier Notifications, which have led to an assessment of an unscientific offer. 11.8 It is trite that the exercise of judicial review is confined to examine whether the decision to cancel a tender is based on valid consideration and not driven by ulterior motive. If the other petitioners have offered bids which have been assessed to be collusive, the petitioner in W.P.No.39669/2025 has offered bids beyond the tender terms. This Court is of the considered view that the Corporation's decision to cancel the earlier Notifications is based on the assessment of there being collusive bids and unscientific quotation of rates to its financial detriment, and that these would be valid considerations. This Court cannot infer either ulterior motive or invalid consideration, especially when there is no specific allegation of ulterior motive.” 20. Whilst the appellant relies on Annexure-E, the documents placed on record along with the statement of objections filed by the respondents in the writ petition (which, the appellant has failed to file - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 along with the present appeal), clearly indicate that the appellant has quoted the lower rates for extraction, debarking, loading and transportation than the rates quoted for extraction, debarking and loading at the plantation site. 21. The import of the said rates is that the appellant would extract, debark and load at site and transport it at a lower rate but would charge higher rates for doing the same work without transporting the product. 22. The respondents also filed an analysis of the comparative statement submitted by the various tenderers, which is similar to Annexure-E (as relied upon by the appellant) but also includes certain additional columns which set out the rates for extraction of eucalyptus pulpwood debarking and transporting to Esthuru village. The said details have been omitted in Annexure-E. The said column indicates that the appellant had quoted `351/- for the said work in respect of the plantation at Koramangala along with transportation. This was lower than the rate of `757/- quoted for cutting, debarking and loading at plantation site. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 23. The learned Advocate General had also handed over a memo setting out the tabular statement indicating some of the rates quoted by the appellant. The said statement is set out below: Unit Sl.No./ Plantation Extraction, Debarking, loading at Plantation site (No transportation) Extraction, Debarking, loading, transportation to Esthur village (Even though there is transportation, the price is less) Distance between Plantation site and Esthur village 5-Rayasandra 797 349 16 kms 6-Koramangala 757 351 20 kms 7-Goramadagu 699 357 18 kms 8-Goramadagu 697 357 18 kms 9-Kandakanahalli 777 354 20 kms 10-Bellavi 877 396 40 kms 11-Halekorandahalli 1127 597 43 kms 12-Ramachandrapura 927 354 38 kms 14-Alambagiri 1117 787 65 kms 17-Agara Ganganatha 1199 799 70 kms 20-Sathanuru Marala 1110 797 80 kms 22-AM Palli II Block 1287 997 70 kms 24. The statement of objections filed by the respondents in the writ petition also stated that some closely related parties had submitted bids, where the bid submitted one of the parties in respect - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 of one plantation was lower and the bid submitted by the other party was lower in respect of another plantation. The respondents also stated that it was found that same combination of bidders had submitted bids for various plantations. Each one of them was lowest in respect of one of the plantations. According to the respondents, this led to the suspicion that the bids were submitted collusively and by cartelisation. 25. These objections may or may not be relevant to the bid submitted by the appellant. However, they are material in determining whether the decision of the respondents to cancel the tender notifications is vitiated by arbitrariness. 26. In any view of the matter, the fact that the appellant had quoted a lower rate for extraction, debarking, loading and transportation to Esthuru village than the rates quoted without transportation, would support the respondents' contention that the rates quoted were without any scientific basis. 27. We may note that the respondents were not obliged to provide any reasons for not accepting bids and could cancel the tender notification without assigning any reasons. The scope of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 judicial review in regard to such decisions is limited. The Court is merely to examine whether the respondents' decision is capricious, arbitrary or unreasonable. The question whether such a decision is arbitrary or unreasonable is required to be tested on the anvil of the Wednesbury principle; that is, no reasonable person could possibly arrive at the said decision. In the given facts, we concur with the learned Single Judge that the decision of the respondents to cancel the tender cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. We are also unable to accept that the decision is mala fide and was taken for the sole purpose to favour any other contractor or contractors. There is no material to establish the same. 28. We are also of the view that the appellant has been less than candid with this Court. He has not annexed the statement of objections filed by the respondents in opposition to the writ petition. On the contrary, it was initially argued that no such statement of objections had been filed. The annexures to the statement of objections filed by the respondents in the writ petition also included tabular statements setting out the comparative rates quoted by contractors. Although the said statement was a part of the record produced by the respondents, the appellant has suppressed the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26869-DB WA No. 976 of 2026 same and relied on Annexure-E, which omitted some of the rates quoted by the contractors. It is also material to note that in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, the respondents had objected to the said Annexure E as not having been issued by them. This is also noted in the impugned order. 29. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at `25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) to be deposited by the appellant with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority [KSLSA], Bengaluru, within a period of two weeks from date. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10