Tender validity must be strictly adhered to as per statutory rules; processes initiated beyond validity are deemed invalid, reinforcing the rule's enforceability.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioners are before this court seeking following prayer:

a. “Issue a writ of mandamus declaring all the process of tender in pursuance of the tender notification dated 25-02-2205 vide annexure-a after expiry of validity period as illegal and arbitrary, in the interest of justice and equity.

b. Issue a direction to the 3^rd and 4^th respondent to call for the fresh tender for sandy quarry lease in terms of karnataka transparency in public procurement (kttp) act, 1999 and allied rules, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Sunil S. Desai, appearing for the petitioners, and the learned Senior Counsel Sri S. S. Yedrami for Sri S. V. Yaji, representing respondent No. 5 and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, also appears for respondents No. 1 to 4.

3. Respondents No.3 and 4 issued an e-tender notification inviting applications from eligible tenderers for quarrying and leasing of sand blocks. The petitioners and respondent No.5, both finding themselves eligible, submitted their tender documents pursuant to the said notification. This fact is not in dispute.

4. The issue in the present lis pertains to the tender process being taken to its logical conclusion, allegedly in contravention of Rule 22 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000, (for short, ‘the Rules of 2000) the applicable Rules, and the circulars issued thereunder.

5. Pursuant to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court had earlier granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings in the tender process. The said interim order continues to remain in force even as on date.

6. Learned counsel Sri Sunil S. Desai, takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the validity period of the tender is 90 days, which expired on 01.04.2025. However, the process of finalizing the tender was initiated only in the month of July 2025, long after the expiry of the stipulated validity period. It is, therefore, contended that the action of the respondents is contrary to the circular and the law laid down by this Court and its Coordinate Benches interpreting the said circular.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri S. S. Yedrami appearing for respondent No.5 vehemently refutes the submissions and contends that there is no hard and fast rule mandating that the tender must be concluded within 90 days. A certain play in the joints must be allowed to the State, as administrative delays may sometimes prevent completion within the stipulated period.

8. He further submits that, based on a work order issued in June 2025, respondent No.5 has invested about Rupees 1 crore and, therefore, the tender process should not be disturbed.

9. It is also submitted that the rigour of Rule 22 of the 2000 Rules is diluted by sub-rule (2), which provides for extension of the validity period. The learned Senior Counsel contends that, this being a contractual matter, the writ jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked to interfere at every stage of the tender process.

10. Learned Senior Counsel also draws attention to the tender document, which permits the District Sand Committee to extend the validity period as per Rule 22 of the Rules of 2000.

11. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.5 and seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

12. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

13. The facts narrated above are not