THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE E-PROCUREMENT TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. GI.AA.CHI/GROUP"D"/2025-26 DATED 17/10/2025 CALLING FOR PROVIDE "D" GROUP EMPLOYEES ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, who has not participated in the Tender Notification, has now assailed the Tender Notification dated 17.10.2025 intended to provide non clinic service and ‘D’ group employees to District Government Hospital, Chitradurga issued by respondent No.4.

2. The captioned writ petition is instituted calling in question the Tender Notification issued by respondent No.4, primarily on the allegation that the same is vitiated by arbitrariness and is in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000 (for short, “KTPP Rules, 2000”). It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that an unreasonably short window of one day was allegedly provided for submission of tender forms, thereby effectively excluding fair competition. Placing reliance on Rule 17 of the KTPP Rules, 2000, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that where the estimated value of the procurement does not exceed ₹2,00,00,000/-, the procuring entity is mandatorily required to provide a minimum period of fifteen (15) days for submission of bids. On this premise, it is urged that the impugned Tender Notification is ex facie illegal and liable to be quashed. It is, however, not in dispute that the petitioner has not participated in the tender process.

3. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has stoutly refuted the allegations and would submit that the very foundation of the writ petition is factually erroneous and misleading. Drawing the attention of this Court to the documents produced by the petitioner himself, she would contend that the assertion that only one day’s time was granted is demonstrably incorrect. It is her submission that the Tender Notification, in fact, provided a substantial time window of nearly one month for submission of bids despite procurement value being less than ₹2,00,00,000/-, the statutory requirement under Rule 17 of the KTPP Rules, 2000 stands fully complied with. Therefore, she would contend that the writ petition is founded on a misconception of facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

4. This Court, having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon meticulous perusal of the material placed on record, finds considerable force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. A careful scrutiny of the Tender Notification produced by the petitioner himself unmistakably indicates that the time stipulated for submission of tenders is from 18.10.2025 to 18.11.2025, thereby affording a period of nearly thirty (30) days to prospective bidders. It is also not in dispute that the estimated value of the tender is below ₹2,00,00,000/- which mandates 15 days period. In such circumstances, the requirement of providing a minimum period of fifteen (15) days as contemplated under Rule 17 of the KTPP Rules, 2000 stands more than satisfied. The very edifice of the petitioner’s challenge, premised on the allegation of grant of only one day’s time, is thus found to be wholly misconceived and contrary to the record. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the writ petition is founded on an erroneous factual premise and does not merit any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.