Only parties that have participated in a tender process have the standing to challenge the conditions of that tender; non-participants cannot be considered aggrieved.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing no. gra pam.aa/2024-25 passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 02-12-2024 and consequential order bearing no. no. gra pam/no/2024-25 dated 30-11-2024 vide Annexure- A and B respectively.

b) Grant such other relief/s as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Bhusan B. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri V.P. Vadavi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner calls in question an order dated 02.12.2024, by which, work order is issued to the private respondent herein. A notice inviting tender becomes the subject matter of the proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition No.102822/2024 filed by one V H Nikhil who was a participant in the tender. Another petition by the third respondent herein in Writ Petition No.103474/2024. The Coordinate Bench answering his claim, passes the following order :

i. This petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 05.04.2024 is hereby quashed.

iii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the requisition made by the petitioner vide Annexures-D and D1 dated 19.06.2024 and if the petitioner is eligible and fulfils all the requirements, suitable orders shall be passed in accordance with law within the time frame of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

4. Pursuant to the said order, it transpires that the tender scrutiny committee or the tender inviting authorities has issued the impugned order in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner is wanting to challenge it. The issue is “who is the petitioner”. The petitioner is neither participant in the tender nor is a party to the proceedings in both the cases referred to herein above. He admits that he is a stranger.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.S. Kalasurmath with vehemence is that, if the panchayat would notify a tender, he would become a participant in the tender and therefore his rights are curtailed as third respondent has issued the work order contrary to law.

6. It is his submission that this Court directed consideration of the case, but an order is issued on the ground that he has been directed to be issued a work order. Be that as it may.

7. A stranger to the proceedings to the tender who did not even participate then and is now wanting to participate in any fresh tender that would be called cannot be termed as person aggrieved, to see the said person knocking at the doors of this Court, invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The issue is no longer res integra as this Court in W.P.No.497/2024 has held as follows:

“8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The threshold issue that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners can raise a challenge to the conditions of the tender having stayed outside the tender, which would mean whether the petitioners have locus to challenge to tender. The facts are afore-narrated. The issue lies in a narrow compass, which need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as this has been considered by this Court, in the Apex Court and several other Courts.

8. This Court in the case of M/s Sri Nanjundeshwara Traders vs. Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited 1 , has held as follows:

20. The Apex Court in the case of