Under Rule 17(2) of the KTPP Rules 2000, a superior authority may legally reduce the minimum tender submission period for recorded reasons, provided it is not less than seven days; furthermore, a bidder who participates in the process cannot subsequently challenge the notification's validity on this ground.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO; A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE AND QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION NO.UNISAKAEHA/S-4/HOSA/CTEM:CR:2025-26, DATED 15/12/2025 INVITING INTERESTED PARTIES FOR MEN POWER THROUGH OUTSOURCING OF ‘C’ AND ‘D’ CADRE EMPLOYEES LIKE COMPUTER OPERATORS/TYPIST, COOKS, KITCHEN SERVANTS, PEONS, WATCHMAN, CLEANING PERSONS FOR OFFICE, PRE-METRIC, POST-METRIC HOSTELS AND BHARATRATNA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL OF HAVERI DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION, B) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CALL FOR A FRESH TENDER AND, C) GRANT ANY OTHER REMEDY THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the tender notification dated 15.12.2025 inviting interested parties for supply of manpower through outsourcing of ‘C’ and ‘D’ cadre employees such as computer operators and the other staff.

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

Respondent No.2 floated a tender notification dated 15.12.2025 inviting interested parties to participate in the tender process for providing manpower through outsourcing of ‘C’ and ‘D’ cadre employees. The petitioner, along with other bidders, participated in the tender process. It is contended that the tender was called for the entire District of Haveri.

As per the tender booklet, the timeline for the tender process was as follows:

The pre-bid meeting was scheduled on 20.12.2025, the last date for uploading the tender was 30.12.2025, the technical bid evaluation was to be held on 02.01.2026, and the financial bid evaluation on 05.01.2026.

The petitioner and other bidders submitted their bids accordingly. The petitioner contends that as per Rule 17 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (for short, KTPP Rules 2000’), if the value of the tender exceeds Rupees Two crores, the minimum period prescribed for submission of bids shall be 30 days. It is submitted that the impugned tender notification provides a period of less than 30 days and therefore, violates Rule 17 of the KTPP Rules 2000. Hence, on these grounds, the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed.

Heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned tender notification is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Rule 17 of the KTPP Rules, 2000. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner, having participated in the tender process, cannot now contend that the tender notification is in violation of Rule 17 (1)(b) of the KTPP Rules, 2000, which provides for a minimum period of 30 days for submission of bids.

He further submits that the competent authority has passed a detailed order reducing the time limit for submission of bids in accordance with Rule 17 (2) of the KTPP Rules, 2000. A copy of the order passed by the superior authority to the tender inviting authority has been produced along with a memo. To substantiate his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in K. Tirupathi Reddy Vs. The Managing Director, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. and Another , reported in (2008) 6 KLJ 677. Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the lear