Judicial review in tender matters is limited to evaluating the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits of the bids, requiring strict adherence to eligibility criteria.

CAV ORDER

1. Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Writ or certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction or order for calling for records about the invitation to tender dated 11.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-B), bearing No. KPTCL/CGM (TECH)/BESS/25-26/002.

ii. Writ, Order or any other direction or order declaring the bid submitted by the successful bidder (L1) as non-complaint and invalid bid.

iii. Writ of certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction or order declaring the action dated 19.08.2025, wherein the petitioners bid was decided as non- responsive, as illegal, and without any basis (Annexure-D)

iv. Writ of certiorari, Mandamus or any other direction or order to qualify our Bid and direct the KPTCL rehold the reverse auction process in an open and transparent manner with sufficient notice. v. Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts of the case.

vi. Grant the costs of these proceedings.

2. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited [KPTCL]- Respondent No.1 invited proposal to set up a grid-connected standalone Battery Energy Storage System, for which a Battery Energy Storage System Agreement would be entered into by the State, the bidders being selected through a reverse auction to provide such energy storage facilities to HESCOMs. The Petitioner participated in respect of the tender notification. It being a single-stage bidding process with two envelopes containing technical and financial bids. The tender was issued on 11.06.2025, a pre-bid meeting was held on 18.06.2025, the last date for bid submission was 3.07.2025, and the process was to be completed by 8.07.2025. The Petitioner claims to have submitted the requisite bid documents vide letter dated 8.07.2025 and informed respondent No.1 that an online application had been successfully submitted through the ETS portal, which was acknowledged on 9.07.2025. Petitioner claims that no deficiencies were pointed out in respect of the documents submitted, and, as such, was shocked to learn on 19.08.2025, upon logging on to the portal, that the Petitioner's bid at tender stage-1 was declared non- responsive.

3. The reverse bid auction was held on 19.08.2025 at 5 pm. The Petitioner, on 20.08.2025, came to know that a company by the name PROSTARM Infosystem had won the current bid, and it is in that background that the Petitioner has approached this Court on 29.08.2025 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Respondent No.1 is the tender issuing authority viz., KPTCL, respondent No.2 is the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission [KERC], Respondent No.3 is the Karnataka State Load Dispatch Centre, Respondent No.4 is the Government of Karnataka, Energy Department and Respondent No.5 is the Ministry of Power.

5. Sri.Sahil Sood Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that,

5.1. No reasons have been communicated either through the tender portal or through any email provided by the Petitioner at the time of rejection, and it is for that reason that the rejection not having been communicated, the Petitioner could not take the necessary steps. The rejection without information to the Petitioner is bad in law and is required to be set aside.

5.2. His submission is that there is a clear violation of natural justice and infirmity in the decision- making process, therefore rendering the writ petition maintainable.

5.3. The Petitioner having submitted all the bid documents in full compliance, this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, and in that regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa , (2007) 14 SCC 517 more particularly