SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442836

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K SINGH
ANKITHA PACKING SOLUTIONS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 27134/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

WRIT PETITION NO. 27134 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

1. ANKITHA PACKING SOLUTIONS

NO.439, 1ST CROSS, 3RD B MAIN

2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE

BENGALURU - 560 085

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

SRI PRASAD S

S/O SREERAMAPPA

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally signed REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO

by

SHARADAVANI THE DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION

B

VIDHANA SOUDHA

Location: High

Court of AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 001

2. MYSORE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE

MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD

REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 MEGA DAIRY COMPLEX

BANNUR ROAD, ALANAHALLI POST

MYSURU - 570 028

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

3. KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 NO.2915, D.R.COLLEGE POST DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

4. SRI M SURESHGOWDA LABOUR CONTRACTOR NO.98, N-1, 3RD MAIN

11TH CROSS, LALITHMAHAL NAGAR, ALANAHALI POST MYSURU - 570 028 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 IN (CP NO.16398/2025)(TAGGED IN WP 23038/25)

SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE WORK ORDER DTD. 31.07.2025 BEARING NO. 720/6 ADMN 2025-26 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNX-A TO R-4 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE TENDER BID OF PETITIONER WHO WAS ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE AS L1 TO RECEIVE THE WORK ORDER FROM R-2 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - proprietorship concern impugning the Work Order dated 31.07.2025, bearing No. 720/6:ADMM:2025- 26 issued by the Mysore District Co-operative Milk Products Producers Societies Union Ltd., in favour of the fourth respondent in pursuance to the tendering process which commenced by issuing Tender Notification dated 30.05.2025 by the Mysore District Cooperative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., 2. The Mysore District Co-operative Milk Products Producers Societies Union Ltd.,(hereafter referred to as 'Mysore District Co-operative Society'), the respondent No. 2 had issued two Tender Notifications bearing No.KMF/2025-26/SE3541 and KMF/2025-26/SE3542 calling upon the Three eligible tenders and Five tenderers having Technical Qualifications and able to supply labourers for production of milk, ghee, buttermilk etc., with knowledge of operation of machineries and technical knowledge in doing the said work. The tender was called for a period of 2 years. The minimum wages in the tender was given Rs.0.30 to Rs. 0.35 per liter of milk etc., The condition No.D-Part-2(3) and the schedule annexed to the tender specifically provided that any tenderer quoting less than the minimum wages as provided in the Tender Notice, such a tender would be cancelled.

3. The fourth respondent had quoted Rs.0.28 as wages per liter. Whereas the petitioner quoted Rs.0.44 per liter. The submission is that in view of the condition mentioned condition No.D-Part-2(3) and the schedule annexed to the tender, tender of fourth respondent should have been cancelled as fourth respondent had quoted Rs.0.28 per liter wages which is less than the minimum wages prescribed in the tender i.e., Rs.0.30 to Rs.0.35 Per liter.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the Expert/Tender Evaluation Committee has evaluated the bids and found that the fourth respondent's bid to be the lowest. After considering all relevant factors, the bid of the fourth respondent has been accepted and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the bidding process and the di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top