ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a common order dated 24.02.2026 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in a set of six writ petitions including W.P.No.39669/2025 (GM-TEN).

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order insofar as it relates to his W.P.No.39669/2025. The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, impugning a re-tender notification dated 26.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2, calling for fresh bids for extraction and transportation of Eucalyptus, Casuarina and Subabool Pulpwood from various plantations within the Bangalore Division.

3. The appellant is, essentially, aggrieved by the cancellation of an earlier tender process initiated vide e-tender notification dated 08.11.2025. The appellant had participated in the said bidding process and claims that he was the lowest bidder (L1) in respect of number of units (plantations) in the Bangalore Division and thus was entitled to be awarded the contract for the same.

4. The respondents state that they had cancelled the said tender notification, inter alia, on various grounds including that the tenders submitted were unscientific and the bids submitted were collusive.

5. The appellant contested the same and claims that the tender notification has been cancelled on account of collusion between the officials of respondent No.2 and other rival contractors to prevent the contract being awarded to the appellant.

6. The learned Single Judge did not accept that the decision to cancel the notification dated 08.11.2025 inviting tenders, was arbitrary. The court declined to interfere with the said decision and, Writ Petition No.39669/2025 and other connected writ petitions were party allowed. The notification dated 26.12.2025, which were impugned in the said writ petitions were set aside and the respondent No.2 was directed to re-issue the tender notification calling for fresh bids for the specified divisions including the Bengaluru division.

7. At the outset it is material to note that the appellant has participated in the re-tendering process and submitted fresh bids, albeit without prejudice to his rights and contentions.

8. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that on 08.11.2025, respondent No.2 had issued e-tender notification for extraction and transportation of eucalyptus, casuarina and subabool pulpwood from various plantations within the Bangalore division for the year 2025-26. The bidding process involved two-cover bids system, comprising technical and financial bids. After issuance of the tender notification, pre-bid meeting was held on 14.11.2025. It is stated that thereafter respondent No.2 added additional qualification criteria of furnishing a three years experience certificate in pulpwood extraction and issued an Addendum and Corrigendum dated 21.11.2025 extending the deadline for furnishing the bids to 06.12.2025.

9. The appellant claims that he had obtained the requisite experience confirmation certificate and furnished his bids before the deadline to furnish the same.

10. There was a delay in opening of the technical bids and the appellant filed a representation dated 09.12.2025 protesting against the same.

11. In the meanwhile, one of the bidders (Mr. Praveen Kumar) filed a writ petition being W.P.No.36337/2025, challenging the criteria of furnishing an experience certificate. The said petition was partly allowed by an order dated 10.12.2025 and the said contractor was permitted to furnish his bid in physical format.

12. Thereafter, the technical bids were opened and the appellant was found to be technically qualified. This was followed by opening of the financial bids and the appellant claims that his bids were the lowest in respect to certain plantations (forest ranges). However, the contract was not awarded to the appellant and subsequently, on 26.12.2025 a re-tender notification was issued, whereby the earlier tender process was cancelled. As not