The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for transparency and accountability in government actions, particularly in tender processes, to ensure compliance with the law and withstand judicial review.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of tender notice insofar as it pertains to Taluk Entry Nos. 33 and 34-Kanakapura and Magadi and has sought a consequential direction to issue work order in favour of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject writ petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be proprietor of a transport firm and a contractor with the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department for a very long time. The issue that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is that the 1st respondent issued a notice inviting tender on 28-01-2022 calling for applications from eligible tenderers for transportation of food grains from the FCI Godown to other godowns in the Taluks for the years between 01-03-2022 to 29-02-2024. The petitioner participated in the bid and had emerged as the successful bidder being L1. After the declaration of the petitioner to be L1 and awarding tender to the petitioner, re-tender notification is issued for 39 Taluks which included the tender that was awarded to the petitioner i.e. Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks. It is this act of issuance of retender that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that pursuant to tender notification dated 28-01-2022 the petitioner who had participated in the tender emerged as a lowest bidder for Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks and had been awarded the tender. In the interregnum a development happened with regard to the petitioner having been falsely implicated in a crime in Crime No. 158 of 2022 which this Court quashed by its order dated 17-08-2022 in W.P. No. 12602 of 2022. Notwithstanding that a re-tender notification was issued. It is his submission that the decision to issue re-tender is not taken by the Committee but by the Commissioner alone which is contrary to law and therefore, would contend that issuance of re-tender insofar as it concerns Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks should be quashed.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State would seek to defend the action of calling for re-tender insofar as several taluks including Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks. Proceedings, according to him, were attended to by five members who did sign at a later date on an attendance sheet and not the proceedings. He would submit that at best it is an irregularity and not an illegality.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

7. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to notice that merely because criminal proceedings against the petitioner have been quashed would not mean that proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) cannot be taken against the petitioner. The proceedings under the Act which are civil in nature have no bearing on what the Court had considered in Writ Petition No. 12602 of 2022 and therefore, the petitioner cannot harp on the crime to contend that the allegations that are found in the earlier writ petition cannot even be considered on the civil side. If that was to be the only contention of the learned counsel, the petition would not have become entertainable. What the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend is, the act of the Tender Scrutiny Committee to call for re-tender on 27-07-2022 is a product of mala-fide action. The decision is taken only by the Commissioner and not by the Committee on 02-07-2022. The result of the decision is the notification of issuance of re-tender, impugned in the petition. The petition concerns only Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks at Entry Nos. 33 and 34.

8. This Court, owing to the submissions m