A tender cannot be notified twice over for the same work: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The high court has imposed Rs 50,000 as a cost upon an executive engineer of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Haveri for twice notifying the tender for the same work. The court said the amount is payable as litigation cost to the petitioner, a class-A government contractor, and that the executive engineer must pay it from his personal funds.

The petitioner, Gopi Gollar, a class-A government contractor from Ranebennur taluk of Haveri district, was the successful bidder in the tender for the “Construction, Commissioning and Operation with Maintenance for one year of 3 KLD Faecal Sludge Treatment Plant (FSTP) at Balabmeed Gram Panchayat in Hangal Taluk of Haveri District. The tender was issued by the Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Department. On May 27, 2025, the work order was issued to Gopi Gollar and subsequently an agreement was entered into between the parties for execution of the work.

On September 9, 2025, a fresh notice inviting tender was issued for the same work. The fresh tender notification was issued for the very same work and at the same place that was already allotted in favour of the petitioner, the petition said.

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that every step of the tender process reached its logical conclusion in the first tender. Upon the agreement being entered into between the parties for execution of the work, what remained was merely the commencement of the execution of the work. Therefore, all rights stood crystallised in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law,” the court said.

The court said that the executive engineer, Rural Development Department, could not have thereafter re-notified a tender for the same work, dubbing it to be reserved for the scheduled caste category. This resulted in upturning a concluded contract between the petitioner and the Rural Drinking Water Department, the court said.

“A tender cannot be notified twice over for the same work. The unsustainability of the fresh tender necessarily leads to its obliteration. The obliteration cannot be a mere formality, for respondent No.5 (executive engineer), being fully aware of the earlier tender process and it being concluded, has re-notified a fresh tender for the same purpose and for the same work. This act on the face of it is illegal and high-handed on the face of it,” Justice Nagaprasanna said, while imposing the cost.