Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J
M/S L V TRADERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 14866 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nataraja Ballal
For the Respondents: Saritha Kulkarni, Srinivasa C., Ashoka T.
Debarment from a tender process is valid if based on a violation of specific tender conditions, such as quoting below the minimum permissible bid; incidental references to subsequent process events do not invalidate the debarment order.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order of debarment and a subsequent work order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, alleging non-consideration of their bid for a tender notification. The petitioner had been debarred for violating Clause 3.7(iv) of the tender conditions by quoting a bid amount below 90% of the estimated tender value. The court found that the debarment was based on this admitted violation of the minimum permissible bid. The central issue was whether the reference to the issuance of a Letter of Intent (LOI) in favor of another respondent in the impugned order constituted an improper ground for debarring the petitioner. The court reasoned that the reference to the LOI was merely incidental and part of the narration of subsequent events to explain the refund of the Earnest Money Deposit, and did not form part of the reasoning for the debarment. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of debarment order and consideration of bid. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument that incidental references in an order cannot be grounds for debarment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. debarment based on violation of minimum bid percentage is valid. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of petition due to lack of grounds for interference. (Para 8) |
Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVEN DRA S. R. NAGARA, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16/04/2026 BEARING NO. E-303350/KREIS/ADMN/FOOD/110/2026-ADMN PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A) ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF NON-CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S BID FOR TENDER NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KERIS/2024-25/IND0030/CALL-3 DATED 17/09/2025 AND ALSO THE WORK ORDER DATED 27/04/2026 BEARING NO.E-303350/KREIS/ADMN/FOOD/110/2026-ADMN (ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ of CERTIORARI to quash the order dated 16/04/2026 bearing no.E-303350/KREIS/ADMN/FOOD/110/2026-ADMN passed by the Respondent no.2 (Annexure-A) only to the extent of non-consideration of Petitioner's bid for Tender Notification bearing no.KERIS/2024-25/IND0030/CALL-3 dated 17/09/2025 and also the Work Order dated 27/04/2026 bearing no.E-303350/KREIS/ADMN/FOOD/110/2026-ADMN (Annexure-H);
(b) Issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no.2 to consider the bid of the Petitioner for the Tender bearing no.KERIS /2024-25/IND0030/CALL-3 dated 17/09/2025;
(c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are substantially identical to those in W.P.No.15988/2026. Hence, in order to avoid repetition, the same are not reiterated herein.
3. The sole contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of debarment proceeds on two distinct grounds. Firstly, it records that the petitioner violated Clause 3.7(iv) of the tender conditions by submitting a bid quoting less than 90% of the estimated tender value. Secondly, it makes reference to the issuance of the Letter of Intent (LOI) in favour of respondent No.4.
4. Learned counsel submits that while the first ground may constitute the basis for the respondents to take action, the issuance of an LOI in favour of respondent No.4 could not have been taken into consideration as a ground for debarring the petitioner. On this basis, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. I have considered the said submission and perused the impugned order as well as the material placed on record. I am unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
6. A plain reading of the impugned order makes it evident that the foundation for the petitioner's debarment is exclusively the violation of Clause 3.7(iv) of the tender conditions, namely, the submission of a bid quoting an amount below 90% of the estimated tender value, which constituted the minimum permissible bid under the tender notification. It is this admitted violation of the tender conditions that has attracted the consequence of debarment under the applicable provisions.
7. The reference in the impugned order to the issuance of the Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No.4 is merely incidental and forms part of the narration of the subsequent events in the tender process. The said reference has no bearing whatsoever on the decision to debar the petitioner. It is only after the Letter of Intent was issued to respondent No.4, the tender process attained finality, respo
