- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7477 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHETHAN J A AGED 35 YEARS S/O APPU GOWDA JOVARE GOWDANA DUFFY VILLAGE, H KOTHANUR POST KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562117 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN AND SRI. PREREET B. JAIN, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. RANJITH CHIPLUNKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD 5TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (V/O/D 23.03.2026, SRI. MONESH KUMAR .K.B, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING TENDERS DATED 09.12.2025 TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITHIN A TIME FRAME TO BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 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 Captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "1. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs or orders directing the Respondent to take the following Tenders dated 09.12.2025 to its logical conclusions in accordance with law and within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; 2. Grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The petitioner, a duly licensed contractor, is before this Court being aggrieved by the palpable inaction and administrative indifference exhibited by the respondent–authority in relation to seven tender notifications floated on 09.12.2025. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that, despite lapse of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 considerable time, the respondent has failed to take the tender process to its logical conclusion. The records would further disclose that the petitioner, having participated in all the seven tenders by submitting bids and remitting substantial Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) aggregating to nearly Rs.30,00,000/-, has also submitted a detailed representation calling upon the respondent to proceed with the tender finalization. However, the said representation has not evoked any response, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. 3. The petitioner has placed on record the particulars of all seven tender notifications in paragraph No.3 of the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an aspiring bidder who has actively participated in the tender process pursuant to the notifications. It is also specifically averred, and not controverted, that except Tender No.1, which is presently sub judice before this Court and is protected by an interim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 order, the remaining tender notifications at Sl. Nos. 2 to 7 are neither under challenge nor the subject matter of any pending proceedings. Therefore, insofar as the said tenders are concerned, there is absolutely no legal impediment or restraint order preventing the respondent– authority from proceeding further. Despite the absence of any such hindrance, the respondent has chosen to keep the tender process in a state of suspension, thereby causing grave prejudice to participating bidders, including the petitioner, who have invested substantial financial resources. 4. The order sheet maintained by this Court assumes significance. On earlier dates of hearing, namely 23.03.2026 and 27.03.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent–authority, which itself reflects a casual and lackadaisical approach in defending a matter involving public procurement. Though on 06.03.2026, learned counsel Sri Monesh Kumar K.B. entered appearance and sought time to obtain instructions, even - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 thereafter, there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming justifying the prolonged inaction. Today, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–authority has taken a stand which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not only untenable in law but also indicative of an institutional disregard to accountability. The submission that the petitioner, being a mere bidder, has no locus or “voice” to question the inaction of the authority, and that this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot issue directions to conclude the tender process, is wholly misconceived. Such a submission runs contrary to the well-established principles governing judicial review in contractual and administrative matters, particularly where arbitrariness, inaction, or abuse of discretion is alleged. 5. This Court cannot lose sight of the statutory framework governing public procurement in the State, namely the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short, “KTPP Act”). The very object and scheme of the said enactment is to ensure - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 transparency, fairness, competitiveness, and accountability in the process of public procurement. The KTPP Act mandates that once a tender notification is floated, the process must be conducted in a time-bound, fair, and transparent manner so as to inspire confidence among participating bidders and to safeguard public interest. The regime introduced under the KTPP Act is not merely procedural but is founded on constitutional principles of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the present case, the tangible material placed before this Court, namely the undisputed delay, absence of any justifiable explanation, non-response to representation, and failure to proceed with tenders which are otherwise free from any legal embargo, clearly demonstrates dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent–authority. The conduct of the authority in keeping the tender process in abeyance for an indefinite period, without assigning reasons, defeats the very - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 purpose of the statutory scheme and adversely impacts not only the petitioner but all similarly situated bidders who participate in public projects by mobilizing financial resources, often through borrowings from financial institutions. 7. Equally disturbing is the tenor of the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent– authority, which suggests an erroneous understanding that the authority is insulated from judicial scrutiny and is not answerable for its inaction. Such a stand cannot be countenanced. Public authorities discharging statutory functions are accountable, and their actions or inaction are amenable to judicial review, particularly when such conduct undermines transparency and fairness in public procurement. 8. The fact that the petitioner has deposited a substantial sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) is not a mere procedural formality but a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 significant financial commitment, reflecting bona fide participation in the tender process. Such participation creates a corresponding obligation on the part of the respondent–authority to act with diligence, promptitude, and fairness. The tendering authority, having invited bids and induced participants to lock in substantial funds, cannot be permitted to keep the tender process in abeyance indefinitely at its whims and fancies. Though it is trite that a bidder does not acquire a vested right to have the contract awarded in his favour, it is equally well settled that every participating bidder has a legitimate expectation that the process initiated by the State instrumentality will be concluded within a reasonable time and in a transparent manner. 9. The right asserted by the petitioner is not a claim for award of contract, but a limited and legally sustainable right to seek completion of the tender process in accordance with the governing statutory framework. The inaction on the part of the respondent–authority, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 despite receipt of substantial EMD and in the absence of any legal impediment, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and is antithetical to the principles underlying public procurement. Public authorities dealing with tenders are trustees of public interest and are equally bound to protect the interests of participants who engage with the State by committing financial resources, often raised through borrowings. Indefinite postponement or unexplained delay in concluding the tender process not only erodes the confidence of bidders but also defeats the object of competitive bidding envisioned under the statutory regime. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that a bidder, who has demonstrably altered his position by investing substantial sums in response to a tender notification, has an enforceable right to seek a direction for expeditious completion of the tender process. The respondent–authority cannot shirk its responsibility by contending that the petitioner has no voice, as such a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 stand would render the entire process arbitrary, opaque, and susceptible to misuse. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and taking note of the apparent administrative apathy and absence of justification for stalling the tender process, this Court is of the considered view that appropriate directions are warranted not only to ensure expeditious conclusion of the tender process but also to examine whether such delay is attributable to extraneous considerations or systemic lapses within the respondent–authority. 12. With these observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The respondent–authority is directed to forthwith take steps to conclude the tender process in respect - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 of Tender Sl. Nos. 2 to 7, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notifications and in compliance with the mandate of the KTPP Act, 1999. (iii) The Chairman of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) is directed to conduct an independent inquiry into the delay in concluding the tender process and ascertain whether such delay is on account of administrative lapses, negligence, or any extraneous considerations. (iv) In the event it is found that the tender process was deliberately stalled or handled in a manner contrary to law, the Chairman shall initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against the erring officials in accordance with law. (v) The Chairman, BWSSB shall file a compliance report before this Court within a period of six(6) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18862 WP No. 7477 of 2026 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (vi) Registry is directed to forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the Chairman, BWSSB for compliance. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60