Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J
H. K. S. SERVICES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 19331 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravi H K
For the Respondents: Saritha Kulkarni
Tender conditions regarding minimum experience thresholds are policy decisions and will not be interfered with by the court unless they are shown to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational, or actuated by mala fides.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the condition prescribed at Sl. No. 6 of the Technical Proposal Submission Form under Section 3A of the Request for Proposal (Tender No. KSHD/2026-27/SE0578) as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the requirement to furnish experience certificates for both entry and parking fee collection was restrictive and that the stipulation for three years of experience within the preceding six years was onerous and designed to favor select bidders. The court noted that the respondents agreed to amend the clause to require experience in either entry fee or parking fee collection. The primary issues were whether the composite experience requirement and the three-year duration threshold were arbitrary. The court held that the prescription of a minimum experience threshold is a policy decision falling within the realm of tender conditions and cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational, or actuated by mala fides. The court further reasoned that the requirement for three years of experience does not necessitate a single certificate but can be satisfied cumulatively through multiple certificates. the writ petition stands disposed of
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tender experience requirements based on alleged arbitrariness and violation of article 14. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. resolution of restrictive criteria through amendment of 'and' to 'or' in experience requirements. (Para 7) |
| 3. validity of policy-based experience thresholds and the principle of cumulative experience. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. disposal of the writ petition following the resolution of the primary grievance. (Para 10) |
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION BY GRANTING THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS:
I. QUASH THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED AT SL. NO.6 OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM UNDER SECTION 3A OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL BEARING TENDER NO. KSHD/2026-27/SE0578 DATED 02.06.2026 OF THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY R2 ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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:
i. Quash the condition prescribed at sl. No.6 of the technical proposal submission form under section 3a of the request for proposal bearing tender no. KSHD/2026-27/SE0578 dated 02.06.2026 of the respondents vide Annexure-A by r2 issuing a writ of certiorari;
ii. Direct the Respondents to issue a corrigendum modifying the condition prescribed at Sl. No.6 of the Technical Proposal Submission Form under Section 3A of the Request for Proposal bearing Tender No. KSHD/2026-27/SE0578 dated 02.06.2026 in terms of the representations submitted by the Petitioner and other prospective bidders by issuing a Writ of Mandamus;
iii. Direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 16.06.2026 vide Annexure-E by issuing a Writ of Mandamus;
iv. Grant such other further relief including costs in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Respondent No.2 had issued a tender notification inviting tenders for collection of Entry fee and Vehicle Parking fee at the Lalbagh Gardens. The petitioner is before this Court contending that Clause (6) of Section 3A of Technical Proposal Submission Form is arbitrary and violative Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Clause (6) of Section 3A of Technical Proposal Submission Form is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“6. Satisfactory Performance Experience Certificates in the field of Entry fee and Parking fee collection of any 3 Years in past 6 Years (i.e from the year 2020-21 to 2025-26 in Government/Government Undertaking Sectors.”
4. The submission of Sri Ravi H.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the impugned clause is liable to be interfered with on two grounds:
4.1. Firstly, it is contended that the tender condition requires the bidder to furnish experience certificates in respect of collection of both Entry Fee and Parking Fee. According to the learned counsel, certificates issued by other Government Departments in favour of the petitioner generally pertain only to collection of Parking Fee and not to both Entry Fee and Parking Fee.
4.2. It is submitted that the system prevailing at Lalbagh, where a composite fee is collected towards entry and parking, stands on a distinct footing and is not comparable with other parking contracts awarded by Government Departments. Hence, the petitioner would not be in a position to produce certificates evidencing experience in collection of both Entry Fee and Parking Fee. It is therefore contended that the said condition is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4.3. Secondly, learned counsel submits that the stipulation requiring production of Performance Experience Certificates for a period of three years during the preceding six years is onerous and unreasonable. It is contended that no such requirement was incorporated in earlier tenders and that the said stipulation has been introduced only
