Tender conditions cannot differentiate based on ownership without rational basis, violating constitutional principles of equality and fairness. (Articles 14 and 19(1)(g))

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

(A) That the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking an order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, and is pleased to pray for quashing the corrigendum tender notification bearing No. KFCSC/PROC/MSP/H&T/01/2025-26/1261 dated 10/10/2025, specifically clause 4(C), issued by the 2^nd respondent, which is produced as Annexure-B to this writ petition in so far petitioner.

(B) The petitioner has further preferred this writ petition seeking an order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents to modify the corrigendum tender notification bearing No.KFCSC/PROC/MSP/H & T/01/2025-26/1261 No. dated 10/10/2025, specifically Clause 4(C), issued by the 2^nd respondent, which is produced as Annexure-B, and to permit the petitioner, being a vehicle owner whose vehicle is more than 15 years old but possesses a valid Fitness Certificate, to participate on par with hired vehicles of the same age. in so for petitioner.

(C) The petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard Sri.Sachin C. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. The respondent No.2-Karntaka State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’ for short], is the tender inviting authority. The Corporation issues a notice inviting tender on 20.09.2025 seeking proposals for handing work to a transport contractor for handling and transportation of paddy from procurement centres to rice mills and coarse grains from procurement centres to state storage points under the minimum support price operations for the Kharif/Rabi Marketing Season 2025-26.

4. The Corporation issues a corrigendum regarding the handling of the transport on 10.10.2025. In the corrigendum comes a particular clause which becomes the bone of contention in the case at hand. The clause is that the transport vehicle-lorry must be less than 15 years old if they are owning one and should have a fitness certificate but if they are hiring one, it would not be applicable. It is this clause that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the clause is per se discriminatory as if you own a lorry which is more than 15 years old, notwithstanding the fitness certificate, you are disqualified. If you rent a lorry or hire a lorry of the same kind with the fitness certificate, it is permitted. He would submit that this discrimination in clause 4(C) must not be permitted to operate. He would seek quashment of the said clause, participation in the tender and taking the tender to its logical conclusion.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand would submit that the issue is a particular clause in tender. If the petitioner does not own a lorry which is less than 15 years old, it cannot be said that the tender is bad. The petitioner cannot choose the conditions of tender and this Court would not interfere with challenge to the particular clauses of a tender.

7. Owning to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels from time to time, this Court on 30.10.2025 had passed the following order:

“This Court on 17.10.2025 had passed the following order:

“Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents. Further proceedings in the tender shall remain subject to the result of the petition.”

Learned counsel