- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30731 WP No. 5658 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5658 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 04, PAMPAKAVI ROAD, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE URBAN, KARNATAKA - 560 018 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MRS. K.M. ASHA MANAGING DIRECTOR REG. UNER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARAJ SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE NO. 21/1, 1ST FLOOR JELLITA TOWERS, MISSION ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 027 3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30731 WP No. 5658 of 2026 M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 5. M/S. SHREYAS TRADERS REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. SARWARNANGALA APPU RAO NO.22, 8TH CROSS, ROYSINGH LAYOUT, SUTIBELE ROAD, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114 REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CLAUSE NO.22 OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA TO BIDDERS STIPULATED IN THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 15.10.2025 BEARING REFERENCE NO.JAMNI/SAKAE/BEN(NA)/ LEKKA/CR-22/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 INSOFAR AS IMPOSING RESTRICTION ON THE BID RATE TO BE MORE OR LESS THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE MARKET VALUE FOR SUPPLY OF FOOD MATERIALS AND OTHER ARTICLES TO PRE-METRIC AND POST-METRIC HOSTELS AND RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS COMING UNDER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTIALLY SET ASIDE THE WORK ORDER DATED 14.01.2026 BEARING REFERENCE NO. JAMNI/SAKAE/BEN(NA)/ LEKKA/CR-22/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30731 WP No. 5658 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Clause No.22 of Eligibility Criteria to Bidders stipulated in the Tender Notification dated 15.10.2025 bearing reference NO.JAMNI/SAKAE/BEN(NA)/ LEKKA/CR- 22/2025-26 issued by the Respondent No.4 insofar as imposing restriction on the bid Rate to be more or less than 15% of the market value for supply of food materials and other articles to Pre-Metric and Post-Metric Hostels and Residential Schools coming under Social Welfare Department, Bengaluru Urban District vide Annexure-A and consequentially set aside the Work Order dated 14.01.2026 bearing reference No. JAMNI/SAKAE/BEN(NA)/LEKKA/CR- 22/2025-26 issued by the Respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 vide Annexure - B. 2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representations dated 04.12.2025, 08.12.2025 and 20.12.2025 vide Annexures-D, E and G and consequentially to consider the bid submitted by the petitioner without insisting for compliance of Clause No. 22 (3) and (4) of Eligibility Criteria pursuant to Tender invited by them for supply of food and other items to Pre-Matric and Post-Matric Hostels and Residential Schools coming under Social Welfare Department, Bengaluru Urban District. 3. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. 4. The respondents having invited tenders for supply of food materials for pre-metric and post-metric hostels, the petitioner and respondent No.5 were some of the bidders who bid for the said tender. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30731 WP No. 5658 of 2026 5. The submission of Sri.S.Rajeshekar., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner having bid 75.17% was lesser than the bid of respondent No.5 which was 85.01% and as such the petitioner ought to have been granted the tender and issued a work order. 6. Sri.Ashoka.T., learned counsel for the respondent No.5 would however submit that; 6.1. Clause (22) of the tender documents, which read as under; 22.
ೆಂಡ ಾರರು ಗೂ -ಎ ಂದ ಗೂ  -ಐ ವೆನ ಆಾರ ಾನಗಳ ಮತು ಇತೆ "ಾಮ ಗ#$ೆ ದರಗಳನು% ನಮೂ&ಸು(ಾಗ ಪ ಸು ತ *ಾರುಕ
ೆ, ದರಗ#ಂತ -ೇ.+/- 15% 2ೆ3 4ೕರದಂ5ೆ ದರಗಳನು% ನಮೂ&ಸುವ6ದು. -ೇ.+/- 15 73ಂತ ೆಚು9 ದರವನು% ನಮೂ&:ರುವಂತಹ <= ಾರರನು% >ರಸ3?ಸ@ಾಗುವ6ದು, ಅಂ>ಮ(ಾ ಒ
ಾ,ೆ *ಾರುಕ
ೆ, ದರಗ#$ೆ -ೇ. 15% ದರಗಳ 4>Cಳ$ೆ ನಮೂ&ಸುವ <= ಾರರನು% ಎD-1 (L-1) ಎಂದು ಪ?ಗEಸ@ಾಗುವ6ದು. 6.2. By relying on the said Clause, his submission is that the range of a tender was +/- 15% which is required to be calculated from a base of 100. Thus, the minimum that could be quoted was 85.01% and the maximum that could be quoted was 114.99%. 6.3. In the present case, the petitioner quoted 75.17% of the base price, which is 24.83% - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30731 WP No. 5658 of 2026 below the base price, since it is not permissible, it could not be considered due to express prohibition under Clause 22 of the tender document. 6.4. On that ground, he submits that the bid submitted by respondent No.5 of 85.01% being within 15% of 100% is within the range and as such the tender submitted by respondent No.5 has been considered and work order issued. 7. Learned AGA submits that the entire tender process has been carried out in terms of the Government policy, where the range of 15% is mandated. The petitioner had expressly agreed to the said condition and now they could not challenge the said Clause. 8. Heard Sri.Rajashekar.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Ashoka.T., learned counsel for appearing for respondent No.5 and learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4. Perused papers. 9. The short question that would arise for consideration is’ “Whether a lower amount than that permissible under tender documentation could be considered for the purpose of grant of issuance of a work order”. 10. When the tender document is very clear that the range of bid has to be +/-15%. It was but required - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30731 WP No. 5658 of 2026 for all the bidders to be within that range and in this present matter would be between 85.01% to 114.99%. The petitioner by submitting a bid lower than the range permissible cannot claim that the petitioner is the lowest bidder, who is required to be considered and work order issued. 11. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the respondents. No grounds being laid out. The Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66