- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34955 WP No. 8800 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8800 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. M/S CHEFTALK FOOD AND HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NO.B/1, NEW EMPIRE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KONDIVITA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400 059, BANGALORE OFFICE AT NO.1 AND 2, 18TH CROSS, 5TH WARD, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT, MANGAMMANAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 068 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. GOVINDA BABU POOJARI S/O BABU POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALI B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V.V.TOWER, 8TH FLOOR, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 'LJLWDOO\VLJQHG E\6+:(7+$ 5$*+$9(1'5$ /RFDWLRQ+,*+ &28572) .$51$7$.$ - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34955 WP No. 8800 of 2026 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFAR SHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION VIDE TENDER REFERENCE NO.DMA/2025-26/IND 5859 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, IN SO FAR AS PACKAGE 1 PROVIDING HOTEL / RESTAURANT SERVICES FOR INDIRA CANTEEN IN KOLAR CMC, BANGARPET TMC AND SRINIVASAPURA TMC OF KOLAR DISTRICT IN KARNATAKA STATE, IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned Tender Notification vide Tender Reference No.DMA/2025-26/ind 5859 vide Annexure-A, issued by Respondent No.3, in so far as package 1 providing Hotel/Restaurant services for Indira Canteen in Kolar CMC, Bangarpet TMC and Srinivasapura TMC of Kolar District in Karnataka State, is concerned; (b) Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 & 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of arrears as indicated in Annexure-H; and also, to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34955 WP No. 8800 of 2026 consider the genuine request to continue its contract till the completion of 3 years in terms of Claus-18.2 extracted above; as well as the e-mail communication and the communication by hand vide Annexure-K & K1, dated 26.02.2026 and 27.02.2026, respectively; (c) Pass such other writ or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with cost, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Respondent No.3 issued a tender notification as regards which the petitioner was a successful bidder in pursuance of which a work order came to be issued on 17.09.2024. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said tender is also subject to yearly extension in terms of Clause 18 of the tender documents. The said Clause-18 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “18. Contract Amendments: (Clause 18) 18.2 The contract is for a period of 1 year from the date of agreement, subjected to yearly extension of contract depending on the performance of the supplier to maximum of 3 years, with no change in the contract price. However, the purchaser has a right to terminate the contract in any point of time due to non performance of the supplier.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34955 WP No. 8800 of 2026 4. His submission is that the Clause contemplating yearly extension to a maximum of 3 years with no change in the contract price a new tender could not have been issued by the respondent in terms of Annexure-A and it is in that background the aforesaid relief at prayer ‘A’ has been sought for. 5. His further contention is that for the works having been done in terms of the work order, the invoices which have been raised by the petitioner have also not been paid and as such, prayer ‘B’ as above has been sought for. 6. On enquiry with the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner participated in the tender issued. He submits that he did not participate and subsequently, the tender process has been completed. If that be so, once the tender process has been completed the question of interference with the same would not arise and as such prayer ‘A’ cannot be granted. 7. As regards prayer ‘B’ whenever invoices are raised by a contractor in terms of the agreement entered into or a work order issued, it is but required for the employer to make payment of the money as per the applicable agreement between the parties. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34955 WP No. 8800 of 2026 petitioner having submitted representations on 26.02.2026 and 27.02.2026, those have also not been considered and orders passed. As such, this court passes following: ORDER i) Writ petition is partly-allowed. ii) Mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexures-K and K1 dated 26.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner. The same would have to be assessed as per the work order and the tender documents and such other documents connected with it. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63