The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to specify the tender value in the notification inviting tender, as mandated by Rule 9 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining a level playing field in the tender process.

ORDER :

The petitioners, in this petition, call in question all 50 independent tenders termed as independent enquiry numbers forming part of a tender notification dated 28-03-2022 and consequently, seek re-notification of all the 50 tenders afresh in terms of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (‘the Act’ for short) and Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (‘the Rules’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Nandakumar.C.K., learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.S.Sriranga, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioners to this court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioners claim to be independent proprietorship concerns doing business of repairing and servicing of electrical transformers and claim to be belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category. The petitioners further claim that they have rich experience in undertaking all repairs of transformers and re-conditioning work of 11 KV Class single coil/multi coil conventional transformers of various capacities and they possess sufficient manpower. The respondent -Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (‘BESCOM’ for short) issues a notification inviting tenders for 54 independent repair centers on 28-03-2022 and later issued a corrigendum restricting the notification to 50 repair centers. Therefore, throughout the jurisdiction of BESCOM close to 50 tenders were floated terming them as enquiry numbers independent to each repair centers. In terms of the Rules, 10 tenders out of 50 were reserved only for tenderers belonging to either members of Scheduled Castes or members of Scheduled Tribes.

4. The petitioners who belong to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes submit their bids only in those reserved tenders, except the 3rd petitioner who submits his bids in both reserved tenders and tenders that were made available to all categories. The reservation of 10 tenders out of 50 became subject matter of Writ Petition No.8492 of 2022. This Court by its order dated 20-04-2022 staying the execution and implementation of the policy of reservation in those 10 tenders, finally allowed the writ petition in terms of its order dated 20-06-2022 quashing 10 tenders reserved to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The respondent/BESCOM challenges the said order of the co-ordinate Bench in Writ Appeal No.667 of 2022. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 02-09-2022 thereby affirming the finding of the learned single Judge. After the closure of the writ appeal, the respondent/BESCOM notifies tenders afresh not in all of the 50 but only in 10 that were quashed by the co-ordinate Bench. Being aggrieved by the act of BESCOM in notifying only 10 tenders and not the entire 50 tenders afresh, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri.C.K.Nandakumar representing the petitioners would vehemently contend that BESCOM ought to have notified all the 50 tenders though the challenge was only of 10 tenders. By not notifying all the 50 tenders, the petitioners are put to prejudice as they lost their opportunity to participate in all the 50 tenders. Hoping that they would be successful had submitted their bids only in the 10 tenders reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court having quashed it, it was incumbent upon the BESCOM to have notified all the tenders is his emphatic submission. The further submission is that this Court considering the very same tender document has clearly given a finding that no value is stipulated in the tender which is contrary to the Rules. The said finding has become final. Therefore, the respondent/BESCOM cannot be permitted to continue with the same tender.

6. On th