Karnataka High Court nixes challenge to tender for supplying food to schools run by Department of Backward Classes

Changing the tendering system from taluka level to district level and increasing the tender period from one year to two years is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, observed Justice Suraj Govindaraj

The Kalaburagi bench of the high court has said that changing the tendering system from taluka level to district level and increasing the tender period from one year to two years is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Justice Suraj Govindaraj said this while dismissing a batch of petitions filed by the bidders who had challenged the tender notification issued for supplying food articles to various schools and colleges run by Department of Backward Classes in North Karnataka.

The petitioners claimed to have earlier supplied food articles to various schools and colleges and the tenders were for a period of one-year and taluka wise. This, according to the petitioners, enabled local businesses/contractors to participate in the tender process and also to supply the food articles at a lesser price, with cost of transport being lesser. The new tender notification, issued in August 2024, changes the system to district wise, requiring the successful tenderer to supply food articles on a district basis for the entire district as a unit, the petitioners said. According to the petitioners, the quality of the food prescribed is at the higher end making it unreasonable and difficult for local contractors to participate in the tender.

The court examined various Apex Court judgements on the issue of tender and observed that a policy decision has been taken by the state, taking into account the several inadequacies of the Taluka Level Tendering System and the advantages of the District Level Tendering System. “Merely because some of the tenderers who are petitioners before this Court would get disqualified would not make the tender arbitrary or unreasonable.

"Karnataka having 31 districts, there will be 31 tenders which would be floated and the supply would be monitored at the district level. The tender documentation and the conditions being equally applicable to all the districts, there is no discrimination resulting out of the said tender documentation since the terms and conditions would be common for each and every district,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.

The court further said, “The increase in the time period of tender per se would be in the benefit of the successful tenderer inasmuch as the successful tenderer would get two years time to recover any expenses or investment made by the tenderer and as such, taking into consideration length and duration of the tender, the participants could also furnish their bids taking into account the income that they may earn over a period of time. The increase of the term of the tender from one year to two years is also a policy decision taken by the State on the basis of expert reports.”