ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other kind of writ or order or direction, setting aside the Order at Annexure- A, dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Respondent No.2, bearing No.A1L1H (TC&P)/283, and all further and consequential proceedings thereon;

2. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other kind of writ or order or direction, setting aside/quashing the E-Tender Notification at Annexure-C, bearing No.KPCL/2025- 26/PS/WORK_INDENT 3861, dated 12.01.2026 issued by the Respondent No.3 and all further and consequential proceedings thereon;

3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other kind of writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents to accept the bid submitted by the Petitioner pursuant to the -E-Tender Notification at Annexure-B, No.KPCL/2025- 26/PS/WORK_INDENT 3699 dated 18.11.2025, and award the contract for executing the work i.e., lifting, transporting and disposing of the Mill Reject Waste Coal, at the Bellary Thermal Corporation Limited, Kudithini;

4. Award costs of the proceedings, 5. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The petitioner–Company claims to be engaged in the business of purchase and disposal of by-products of coal and asserts expertise in handling coal derivatives including dolochar and similar materials.

3. The respondent No.2 manages Bellary Thermal Power Station (BTPS). The respondents issued an e-tender notification dated 18.11.2025 inviting bids for sale of Mill Reject Waste Coal (MRWC) for a period of two years, fixing a reserve price of Rs.763/- per MT.

4. The petitioner, asserting that it fulfilled the pre-qualification requirements (PQR), submitted its bid along with two other bidders. However, the petitioner came to be disqualified on the ground that its experience in handling dolochar does not qualify as experience in “waste coal”.

5. Thereafter, by the impugned proceedings dated 05.01.2026, the respondents cancelled the earlier tender and re-floated a fresh tender with substantially modified PQR conditions, inter alia restricting experience specifically to “mill reject coal from thermal power stations” and doubling the turnover requirement from Rs.724.85 Lakhs to Rs.1449.70 Lakhs.

6. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the cancellation of the earlier tender; andthe modified tender notification, contending that the revised PQR conditions are arbitrary, tailor-made and intended to eliminate competition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the respondent–authority is justified in cancelling the earlier tender and re-floating the tender with modified PQR conditions?

(ii) Whether the revised pre-qualification conditions are arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

(iii) What is the scope of judicial review in tender matters where arbitrariness and mala fides are alleged?

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was fully qualified under the original PQR; that disqualification on the ground of “dolochar” not being “waste coal” is hyper-technical and unsustainable; that immediately thereafter, the respondents have modified the tender conditions to restrict participation and eliminate bidders; that the turnover condition has been arbitrarily doubled without any nexus to the object sought to be achieved; that other tenders floated by the same authority (Annexures-G and H) for higher reserve price prescribe substantially lower eligibility criteria, thereby exposing hostile discrimination; that the action defeats the very principle of securing highest price through competitive bidding.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the tendering authority has absolute discretion to prescribe eligibility criteria; modification was undertak