Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Hind Metals, By Their Proprietors, R. Sikandar Basha, R/By Peer Nasir Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home And Transport – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge letter of acceptance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on eligibility under scrapping policy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's stance on locus standi and tender process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. petition dismissed due to non-participation. (Para 10) |
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
Only participants of a tender can challenge its conditions; non-participation negates legal standing to contest any aspect of the tender process.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited to preventing arbitrariness; authorities have discretion in setting conditions based on project requirements.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; unsuccessful bidders cannot later challenge tender conditions they participated under.
A party must participate in auction proceedings to have the standing to challenge them; non-participation negates any locus standi.
A non-participant in a tender process lacks locus standi to challenge tender decisions, affirming that timely grievances are essential to public project integrity.
Natural justice mandates that necessary parties must be heard before an adverse order is issued, making their non-inclusion in proceedings fatal to the case.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria for tenders, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
The cancellation of a tender process is justified when material changes occur, such as the inclusion of railway land, which alters the project's scope and public interest considerations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
