The court affirmed that tendering authorities have discretion to set conditions and extend contracts, provided such actions are not arbitrary or unreasonable.

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 re-look by the respondents - BESCOM for it to escape non- arbitrariness. The BESCOM shall take note of the observations made in the course of the order and have a re-look at the conditions of tender in future. The impugned order does not warrant any interference.”

2. The aforesaid writ petition is a second round of litigation by the appellant. The first one being WP No.3206/2022, was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.02.2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The review petition filed thereof was also disposed of.

3. Some of the facts to be noted are, the respondents No.1 and 2 herein had, on 25.01.2022, issued a tender notification with reference No.BESCOM/BCP-1373/2021-2022 for availing Manpower services to 100 Seater 24 x 7 Customer Helpline at Center of Excellence, HSR Layout, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (‘BESCOM’ for short), Bengaluru for a total amount of Rs.20.97 Crores. On 07.02.2022, the appellant filed a writ petition being WP No.3206/2022 challenging the tender notification. The challenge to the same was primarily questioned on two grounds,- (i) as required under Rule 17 in KARNATAKA TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENTS RULES , 2000 (‘Rules of 2000’ for short); (ii) respondents No.1 and 2 have not provided 30 days’ time and further ground was that, under clause 5(10) of the tender notification, a tenderer having the annual turnover of not less than two times the amount put to tender in any two years during the last preceding five financial years is only qualified to submit his tender, is bad.

4. The case of the appellant was that, such a condition was put to favour certain tenderers and to keep the appellant out, who was existing provider.

5. As stated above, on 28.02.2022, the WP No.3206/2022 came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge. The appellant filed a review petition being RP No.413/2022. A status-report was filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 stating that the tender tenure is going to expire/coming to an end, in view of the same, review petition came to be disposed of. Subsequent to the disposal of the review petition, the appellant in a representation dated 12.01.2023, requested respondent no.2 not to renew the contract in favour of respondent No.3. It was the case of the appellant that respondents No.1 and 2 without considering the representation dated 12.01.2023, had issued an extension order extending the contract for a period of two years and the same is contrary to Rules of 2000 or Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (‘Act of 1999’ for short). It was in this background that a writ petition was filed by the appellant wherein the prayers made were the following :

“WHEREFORE, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court