Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.RACHAIAH, V. KAMESWAR RAO, ACJ.
G.S. Management Services Pvt Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director Mr. H.S. Gopal – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Bescom, Corporate Service, K.R. Circle, Bengaluru – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against single judge's order (Para 2) |
| 2. tender conditions and eligibility criteria (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. challenge to the tender extension based on alleged arbitrariness. (Para 4) |
| 4. appellant's claim of arbitrariness (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's observations on the tender process and extension validity. (Para 8) |
| 6. reasons for extension and court discretion (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. arguments by respondents justifying extension (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 8. constructive res judicata and case law (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 9. dismissal of the appeal (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
(V. KAMESWAR RAO, ACJ.)
This writ appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.8830/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition by stating in paragraph No.11 as under:
“11. The extension in the considered view of this Court cannot run beyond the period for which the tender is itself called. This Court would not direct that the tender should be called in a particular manner, but the extension granted for two more years or the tender being invited for one year and extendable for two years needs to have a r
The court affirmed that tendering authorities have discretion to set conditions and extend contracts, provided such actions are not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Tender Process - Extension of period of Contract - Placed on successful bidders may be extended/repeated at sole discretion of Corporation for a further period of up to 12 months including increasing....
A contract's duration dictates rights to extension; courts may not interfere in administrative tender decisions without compelling evidence of arbitrariness.
The discretion of public authorities in contract renewals must align with contractual terms and not amount to arbitrary action, ensuring transparency and fairness in public procurement.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
The principle established is that the tendering process and selection criteria cannot be changed after the process has started, and imposing additional conditions after the tender process has begun i....
Fairness and transparency in tender processes mandate that bid deadlines cannot be altered without public notice, as such changes can create unfair advantages and violate equal opportunity principles....
The court established that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event, warranting an extension of contractual obligations, and underscored the necessity of arbitration in resolving disp....
The court affirmed that a tendering authority's timeline for bid submission is not subject to judicial scrutiny unless proven arbitrary, and a non-participating bidder lacks standing to challenge ten....
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
