Only participants of a tender can challenge its conditions; non-participation negates legal standing to contest any aspect of the tender process.

ORDER :

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.)

Heard learned senior counsel Sri Rajesh Mahale, on behalf of learned counsel Sri Sadiq N. Goodwala for petitioners and the learned counsel Sri Mohammad Akram Uppin on behalf of learned counsel Sri R.Kothwal, for respondent No.4 as well as the learned counsel Sri Prashant Hosmani, for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed by petitioners seeking to quash the letter of acceptance dated 19.05.2025 issued by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4.

3. It is the contention of learned senior counsel Sri Rajesh Mahale that respondent No.1 has issued Scraping Policy of Karnataka, 2022 and it is enumerated at Clause 5 with regard to eligibility criteria for setting up of RVSF and he relies on Clause 5(a) to show that the applicant should have office in Karnataka. This being so, respondent No.3 has issued letter of acceptance in favour of respondent No.4 in violation of the Karnataka Scrapping Policy, 2022 and consequently, in view of issuance of the letter of acceptance, petitioners have approached this Court as the same is in contravention to the policy of the State and the Central Government Rules. Therefore, it is contended by learned senior counsel that respondent No.4 does not comply with the eligibility criteria required and he has participated in the tender, which has been accepted by giving an acceptance letter, which is perverse, arbitrary and illegal and the same requires to be quashed.

3. Learned senior counsel further contends that there is a requirement for respondent No.4 to have a unit in scrapping yard in the State of Karnataka to perform any activities in accordance to the Policy, 2022 and Central Government Rules. Therefore, there is an illegal allotment of work order in favour of respondent No.4. He further contends that as per the Karnataka Scrapping Policy, 2022, the dismantling of any of the vehicle necessarily should be done in the registered Unit, which is required to be located in the State of Karnataka. He had also relied upon a judgement of the coordinate bench of this Court for obtaining an interim order in W.P.No.101237/2025 (GM- TEN), based on which, this Court granted an interim order in favour of the petitioners. Hence, learned counsel for petitioners seeks to quash the impugned order.

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel Sri Mohammad Akram Uppin representing respondent No.4 vehemently contends that the petition primarily is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners are not participants in the tender and they are not at all affected or aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd respondent granting the letter of acceptance. However, if petitioners intend to challenge the notification, they will have to do so in accordance with law and not stall the tender process and the acceptance letter already issued, pursuant to which, delivery order also been issued to the 4^th respondent. Under the circumstances, he relies upon an order of a coordinate bench of this Court, which in similar circumstances in W.P.No.7376/2025 had initially granted an interim order, but later vacated the interim order at the instance of the successful bidder. The order reads as under :

“Heard both sides.

Learned counsel Sri P.D.Surana has filed I.A.no.3/2025 and has sought for vacating the order of stay. The primary contention raised by the petitioners is that most of the auction by KSRTC and BMTC is being conducted by respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 is the beneficiary, in light of certain Directors being part of both the Management.

In the interim order passed on 12.03.2025, this Court had made certain observations including that respondents were restrained from confirming the auction till further orders.

Sri P.D.Surana alon