- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6426 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SPARDHA MITHRA, REGD. UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE, AT NO.3417/15, SERVICE ROAD, ATTIGUPPE METRO STATION, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.OMKAR PATEL. 2. M/S. KARNATAKA CLASSIC EDUCATION PVT LTD, CLASSIC CAMPUS, NEAR SHARADA SCHOOL, SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD - 580 001. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI. LAXMAN S UPPAR. 3. M/S. DR. RAJKUMAR ACADEMY, NO. 2952/E, 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR, SREE RAMA JEWELS, SERVICE RD, OPP. MARUTHI MANDIRA, HOSAHALLI EXTENSION, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS.ROOPALI. 4. M/S. TOPPER IAS, 2. 3RD FLOOR, MAHENDRA TOWERS, NEAR METRO STATION, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS. SOMASHEKAR HULIMANI. 5. M/S. JICE IAS/KAS ACADEMY, NO 1045, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, 6TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR M.K.AHMED SUPER MARKET, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. CHETAN T. 6. M/S. SADHANA COACHING CENTRE, 2 NO216, 16 TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. MAHADEV RAJU L. 7. M/S. PRAMATHI EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST, REGD C.A NO-2, UDAYARAVI ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 023. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DR RAVI SR. 8. M/S. ICS INSTITUTE, JNANASOUDHA, HALIYAL ROAD, SRINAGAR, DHARWAD - 580 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. RAVI ULLAGADDI. 9. M/S. JNANAGANGOTHRI COMPETITVE EXAMS COACHING CENTER, NO.30 HOSPITCHHOUSE, 17TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BANAGLORE - 560 040. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. MOHANKUMAR. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 10. M/S. GRACE IAS, NO 95, 3RD FLOOR, 60 FEET MAIN ROAD, (NEAR HP PETROL BUNK) CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS. ANNAPURNA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.16-D, 3RD FLOOR, D. DEVARAJ URS BHAVANA, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.16-D, 3RD FLOOR, D. DEVARAJ URS BHAVANA, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.16-D, 3RD FLOOR, D. DEVARAJ URS BHAVANA, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE SHORT TERM E-TENDER NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO. BCWD/TRAINING-1/PSI/CR-1(A)/2025-26 DATED 31.01.2026 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA (RESPONDENT NO.3), IN RESPECT OF (I) BENGALURU DIVISION, (II) MYSURU DIVISION, (III) BELAGAVI DIVISION AND (IV) KALABURAGI DIVISION, FOR POLICE SUB- INSPECTOR PRE-RECRUITMENT RESIDENTIAL TRAINING TO BACKWARD CLASSES CANDIDATES (MEN) 2025-26, VIDE ANNEXURE-B SERIES (B TO B3) AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS/ACTIONS PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC., 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 The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the Short term E-tender notification bearing No.BCWD/Training- 1/PSI/CR-1(A)/2025-26 dated 31.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Director, Backward Classes Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka (respondent NO.3), in respect of (i) Bengaluru Division, (ii) Mysuru Division, (iii) Belagavi Division and (iv) Kalaburagi Division, for "Police Sub-Inspector Pre-Recruitment Residential Training to Backward Classes Candidates (Men)-2025- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 26", vide Annexure-B series (B to B3) and all consequential proceedings/actions pursuant thereto; (b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to revisit and reconsider the impugned tender conditions in the light of the grievances raised in the pre-bid meeting dated 05.02.2026 and the proceedings at Annexure-C by respondent No.3, and thereafter to reframe and re- notify the tender process is accordance with law by prescribing fair, workable and non-exclusionary eligibility and evaluation conditions so as to ensure adequate competition, accessibility and quality of training for the intended beneficiaries. (c) Pass such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and quity." 2. Today, the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record certain documents to indicate that the tender process has already been concluded in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the work order has been issued in favour of the successful bidders. It is further submitted that the institutions which emerged as successful bidders have already been entrusted with the task of imparting training to the prospective candidates pursuant to the work order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 issued by the competent authority. The learned AGA would also submit that the training programme has already commenced and that the candidates enrolled under the programme have completed 25 days of training out of the total training schedule of 75 days, thereby indicating that the implementation of the project has substantially progressed. 3. Having taken note of the statement made by the learned AGA and on perusal of the documents produced before this Court, it is evident that the tender process has already culminated in the issuance of work orders and the execution of the training programme is presently underway. 4. It is by now well settled through a consistent line of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that judicial review in matters relating to tenders and contractual conditions is extremely limited. Courts ordinarily exercise restraint in interfering with the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 terms and conditions prescribed in tender notifications. Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where the conditions imposed are shown to be manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable or actuated by mala fides, or where the conditions are deliberately structured in a manner that excludes healthy competition and confers an undue advantage upon a select few participants. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority to examine the commercial wisdom of the tendering authority or to substitute its own view as to what conditions would be more appropriate. Unless the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the impugned conditions have the effect of substantially eliminating competition in the market despite the availability of several financially and technically competent participants, this Court cannot dilute or rewrite the eligibility criteria framed by the tendering authority merely on the ground that such conditions may incidentally exclude certain new entrants. The authority issuing the tender enjoys a reasonable degree of freedom - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 to prescribe eligibility criteria, subject only to the limitation that such conditions should not violate constitutional guarantees or be demonstrably arbitrary. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers v. NEW J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and Ors.1, held that “the author of the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. 6. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uflex Ltd. v. State of T.N.2, held that the judicial review in contractual matters is constrained with its own limitation and that judicial review of administrative action is only 1 (2021) 16 SCC 808 2 (2022) 1 SCC 165 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 intended to curb arbitrariness, unreasonableness, irrationality and malafides. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the petitioner has not been able to place any cogent material to demonstrate that the tender process suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of the prescribed tender conditions. It is well settled that judicial review in matters relating to tenders is limited and the Court would not ordinarily interfere with administrative decisions unless the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality or procedural impropriety. 8. In the present case, apart from making a general grievance, the petitioner has failed to substantiate any such infirmity in the tender process. Moreover, in view of the fact that the process has already been concluded and the implementation has substantially progressed with the candidates already undergoing training, this Court is of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14275 WP No. 6426 of 2026 the considered view that no grounds are made out warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23