ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the tender notification issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A and also sought for a mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue fresh tender notification in accordance with the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurement Act, 1999 ('KTPP Act'

for short) and rules.

2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

The respondent No.3 issued the tender notification through e-procurement inviting applications from the qualified tenderers for carrying out works under CAPEX and under the revenue budget for 18 divisions for a period of 2 years on partial turnkey basis. The respondent No.3 issued corrigendums to the tender notification on 23.10.2020 and last date for submission of bids by the eligible bidders was on 03.11.2020. The date of opening the tender techno commercial bids was on 04.11.2020, the period of contract was 24 months from the date of issuance of award or work order. It is contended that as per the tender documents the bidders shall quote only the percentage on total/partial turnkey basis. The project description is to improve the quality of power supply to the consumers and to mitigate the issues described under para 1.1 of the tender document and the nature of work is to carry out planned and unplanned works in its area to cater power supply requirement of consumers and strengthening of distribution network on regular basis. In the notification the value is shown as 93,08,477.36 for all

18 divisions but in the tender document, the approximate value of the tender has been shown, varying between 30 to 40 crores. It is contended that the respondents without prescribing the quantity of the work, has fixed the past experience and also quoted the value of the tender. The amount arrived by respondent No.3 is imaginary and arbitrary. The petitioner submitted the representation with regard to certain conditions in the tender document and notification. Some of the conditions are modified by issuing two corrigendums, but not considered all the objections raised by the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the tender notification has filed this writ petition.

3. Respondents filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the condition. It is contended that petitioner has not participated in the tender process. Hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the condition mentioned in the tender notification and further contended that respondent No.3 has issued two corrigendums and further tender notification and corrigendums are in accordance with the KTPP Rules, 2000.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Senior counsel Sri. S.S. Naganand for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned tender notification is vague and respondent No.3 has not fixed the specified quantity of work to be carried out, number of poles, transformers, cable to be laid and other work to be carried out and It is contended that authorities cannot fix the eligibility criteria without specifying the exact quantity of the work to be carried out and criteria fixed is based on the imaginary quantity. He also placed reliance on Rule 12(5) of KTPP Rules, 2000 and contend that the said notification does not indicate the quantity of the work proposed to be procured in the tender. Hence, the tender notification is contrary to rule

12(5) of Rules, 2000. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that petitioner has not participated in the tender process and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the tender notification. , hence, submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. He further submits that respondent No.3 has already issued the work order in favour of third party and the third party has undertaken a construction work