Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ, C.M. POONACHA
Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Luman Industries Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to pre-qualification criteria. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against minimum turnover criteria. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis on judicial review scope. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. principles of judicial restraint in procurement. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. rationale for maintaining turnover criteria. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J.
1. For the reasons stated in the application – I.A.No.2/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of 139 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning an order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12793/2024 (GM-TEN).
3. Respondent No.1 [writ petitioner] had filed the afore- mentioned writ petition, impugning the pre-qualification criteria for submitting bids in terms of the Tender Notification dated 15.03.2024 [hereafter the NIT] issued by the appellant. The respondent’s challenge was not only upheld, but the learned Single Judge also modified the pre-qualification criteria.
4. The appellant [Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation] which is inter alia engaged in providing public transport - had issued the NIT inviting bids for supply of a
In procurement matters, minimum eligibility criteria set by State authorities must be reasonable and not arbitrary; courts should exercise restraint in judicial review of such criteria.
Judicial review is permissible in tender matters only to prevent arbitrariness; criteria should ensure fairness and cannot favor specific bidders without rational basis.
The imposition of arbitrary turnover requirements in tender processes, lacking rational justification, violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, ensuring fair opportunity and competition....
Court emphasized the limits of judicial intervention in tender processes, maintaining that eligibility criteria must be rational and not arbitrary. The absence of merit in the petition led to its dis....
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 court affirmed that stringent eligibility criteria in public tender processes cannot violate statutory relaxations for Start-ups, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial review.
Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to fav....
The court established that significant deviations from tender guidelines and arbitrary evaluation criteria violate the principles of fairness and proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
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
