Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, K.S. Hemalekha, J
MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M/S RAJA ELECTRICALS – Respondent
WA No. 1441 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Udaya Holla, Ajay Prabhu M
For the Respondents: Kalyan R, Anand R V
An interim injunction restraining the issuance of a work order may be vacated if the challenging party is found to be technically disqualified on grounds independent of the disputed tender condition.
Headnote:The appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act challenging an interim order passed in a writ petition. The respondent had challenged a tender notification's eligibility clause which restricted qualifying experience to supplies made within Karnataka, alleging such a condition was manifestly arbitrary. The court noted that following the interim order, all bids were evaluated, and the respondent was found to be technically disqualified on grounds other than the disputed experience requirement. The primary issue was whether the interim injunction restraining the issuance of work orders should be maintained. The court reasoned that since the respondent failed the technical evaluation regardless of the restrictive experience clause, there was no longer any impediment to the appellants proceeding with the issuance of work orders. The impugned order is, accordingly, modified to vacate the injunction restraining the appellants from issuing work orders pursuant to the tender notification dated 06.02.2026.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the appeal and the challenge against restrictive tender eligibility clauses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. technical disqualification of a bidder independent of the disputed eligibility criteria. (Para 5) |
| 3. vacation of interim injunction upon finding that the petitioner is technically ineligible. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1441 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 6433/2026 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application – I.A. No.1/2026, the same is allowed. The delay of 54 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an interim order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6433/2026 (GM-TEN). The respondent had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying as under:
a) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction and to quash the impugned tender notification bearing No.bearing bid enquiry NO.MESCOM/2025-26/EL/WORK_INDENT398, and corrigendum bearing bid enquiry No.MESCOM/2025-26/EL/WORK_INDENT398, only in so far as prescribing pre-bid qualifying requirements "Minimum quantity in any DISCOM/Power utilities/SCB's/ Government Entities in Karnataka" and consequently to quash the corrigendum issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure A and A-1 to the writ Petition.
b) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction by directing the respondents to proceed further in prescribing tender condition in compliance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Vinishma Technologies Pvt Ltd vs State of Chhattisgarh."
3. The respondent was aggrieved by the restrictive eligibility clause contained in the tender notification that confined the qualifying experience to the supplies made to any DISCOM, power utilities, State Electricity Boards or government entities in the Karnataka State only. It was the respondent's case that the experience of supplies made by entities outside the State, also ought not to be excluded. According to the respondent, the said restrictive clause is manifestly arbitrary.
4. The learned Single Judge has, prima facie accepted the contention and, accordingly, issued an ad interim order directing the appellants to evaluate all bids received pursuant to the tender notification, but defer issuing the work order based on such evaluation till the next date of hearing.
5. This Court is informed that pursuant to the said order, all bids, including that of the respondent were evaluated and it was found that the respondent was technically disqualified for the reason other than the work experience in Karnataka as the respondent did not satisfy the technical evaluation.
6. In view of the above, we find no impediment in the appellants proceeding to issue the work orders as in any event, the respondent has been technically disqualified on the evaluation of the bids. The impugned order is, accordingly, modified to vacate the injunction restraining the appellants from issuing work orders pursuant to the tender notification dated 06.02.2026.
7. We also clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
