The Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the KTTP Act cannot embark upon an enquiry into the eligibility of successful bidders to unsettle a concluded tender process, as such action exceeds its permissible jurisdictional scope.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2026 PASSED BY R1/APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE KTPP ACT, 1999 PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FOR AS THE ORDER SETS ASIDE THE TENDER PROCESS FOR PACKAGE 24 AND DIRECTS ISSUANCE OF A FRESH TENDER BEARING NO. BSWML/2025-26/SE0079/CALL 02 AS PER PETITION CONCERNED. QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. DGM 1/BSWML/TEND/21/2025-26 DATED 10/03/2026 ISSUED BY R8 AT ANNEXURE E AS PER PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner, who is undisputedly a successful bidder and have been declared as L1 in the respective tender processes. The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short, ‘KTTP Act’). The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority, while entertaining appeals filed by unsuccessful bidders, has travelled beyond the permissible scope of its jurisdiction and has virtually undertaken an adjudication on the eligibility of the petitioner, which is impermissible in law.

2. This Court, having heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, had adjourned the matter at the request of the learned Advocate General to enable him to obtain instructions and assist the Court on the scope and ambit of jurisdiction exercisable by the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the ‘KTTP Act’.

3. When the matter was taken up for further consideration today, the learned Advocate General, upon instructions, fairly submitted that the Appellate Authority has indeed exceeded its jurisdiction while adjudicating the appeals preferred by the unsuccessful bidders under Section 16 of the ‘KTTP Act’. It is fairly conceded that the Appellate Authority could not have embarked upon an enquiry touching upon the eligibility of the successful bidders and consequently could not have issued directions which have the effect of unsettling the concluded tender process.

4. In the light of the fair and categorical submission made by the learned Advocate General and on a perusal of the impugned orders, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellate Authority has clearly acted in excess of the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 16 of the ‘KTTP Act’. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, insofar as they relate to examining and questioning the eligibility of the petitioner who is a successful bidder are wholly unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned orders, to that extent, are liable to be interfered with and set aside.

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in W.P.No.8524/2026, the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) furnished by the petitioner has been returned by the Tendering Authority, purportedly in compliance with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In view of the present adjudication, the said action of the Tendering Authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Tendering Authority is directed to take cognizance of this order and reconsider the acceptance of the EMD submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

OR