IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33830 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

M/S LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA TRADERS

5^TH MAIN, APMC YARD BENGALURU- 560 022 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI.DEVATHA ADINARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS A FIRM REGISTERED UNDER GST ACT PARTNERSHIP CONCERN.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA S SHASTRY., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. IRISHAD AHAMED B M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT Digitally signed by SHWETHA VIKASA SOUDHA RAGHAVENDRA BENGALURU- 560 001.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.G.ROAD, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA BENGALURU- 560 009.

3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT NO.21/1, 1ST FLOOR, JELLITA TOWERS MISSION ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA BENGALURU-560 027.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K P YASHODHA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 15.10.2025, BEARING NO.JAMNI/SAKAE/BEM(NA)/LEKKA/CR-22/2025-26, ISSUED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

1. To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari Quashing the impugned tender notification dated 15.10.2025, bearing No:Jamni/ Sakae/Bem (Na)/Lekka/Cr-22/2025-26, issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A, in so far as the petitioner is concerned in the justice and equity

2. To issue a writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to invite fresh tender, in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the minimum time period prescribed under Rule 13 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000 [‘KTPP Rules’ for short] has not been adhered to by the tender issuing authority, inasmuch as the time period fixed is 22 days which is less than the period of 30 days required in terms of Clause (B) of Subrule (1) Rule 17 being 30 days, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. In support of his contention, Shri Vigneshswar Shastri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. -v- STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANOTHER [SLP No. 24075/2025], more particularly para 20 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

20. Such a restriction, therefore, cannot be justified as reasonable within the meaning of 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The State while it enjoys the freedom to prescribe the conditions in the tender, cannot exercise that power in a manner that infringes upon constitutional guarantees, by closing the market to outsiders without just cause. The doctrine of level playing field requires that gates of competition be opened to all who are equally placed. The impugned tender condition excludes the competent and experienced suppliers, who may have executed contracts of far greater magnitude in other States or for the Central Government departments, from participating in the tender and has the impact of promoting cartelisation. The im- pugned condition operates as a closed door to outsiders and restricts the wider participation of bidders and restricts competition. The impugned ten-der condition, therefore, is violative of Article 14 and also offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

4. By relying on VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES