Karnataka High Court
Credit: iStock Photo
Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the Karnataka high court has quashed a clause in the tender issued by the Karnataka State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited terming it as discriminatory. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the amended clause revealed “a startling incongruity".
On September 20, 2025, the corporation invited bids for transporting paddy from procurement centres to rice mills and coarse grains from procurement centres to state storage points.
The tender was for transportation under the minimum support price operations for the Kharif/Rabi Marketing Season 2025-26. On October 10, 2025, a corrigendum was issued inserting clause 4(C), stipulating that an owned lorry must be under 15 years old and hold a fitness certificate, whereas a hired lorry of the same age required only the fitness certificate.
The petition was filed by Rachappa S Mannagi, a Haveri based businessman, contending that clause 4(C) is per se discriminatory. Notwithstanding the fitness certificate, the owner of a lorry, that is more than 15 years old, is disqualified. Whereas a rented or hired lorry of the same kind with the fitness certificate is permitted to participate in the tender process, the petitioner argued. During the pendency of the petition, the court had passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to participate in the bidding.
The court noted that the tender condition initially indicated that the bidder shall not employ trucks of more than 15 years old during the execution of contract. However, it was now changed subsequently by inserting clause 4 (C). Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that a plain reading of the amended clause reveals a startling incongruity and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.
“The age of the vehicle remains constant; the fitness certificate remains constant, yet eligibility oscillates solely based on ownership. Such classification is not merely illogical, it is Constitutionally impermissible. A truck is a truck; age is an age and fitness is fitness. The Constitution does not countenance such capricious distinctions. The impugned clause, therefore, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court cited the Apex Court judgement in the Vinishma Technologies Private Limited case wherein the top court held that while the state enjoys latitude in framing tender conditions, such conditions must satisfy the touchstone of fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination.
“Tender stipulations that erect artificial barriers and distort the level playing field are necessarily to be struck down. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, I have no hesitation in holding that clause 4(C), as amended by the corrigendum dated 10.10.2025 is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable, the court said.