Case Name: Sri. B S Kiran Kumar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 27474 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
Court: High Court Of Karnataka, at Bengaluru
Date: Third day of November, Two-Thousand Twenty-Five
Quorum: Justice Suraj Govindraj
FACTS
The petitioners are the municipal solid waste management contractors who have been providing various services to BBMP, including primary waste collection, sanitary waste management, street sweeping.
Originally, tenders for waste management in Bengaluru were appointed ward-wise. The first tender (2022) and the second tender (2023) divided the city into 89 packages. After the second tender was withdrawn a third integrated tender was issued in November 2024. When that tender lapsed in January, 2025, a fourth tender was issued on 30.07.2025, which consolidated the system into 33 large packages, each containing 7-8 wards, thereby increasing the cost of the tender from Rs.400 lakhs/Rs.500 lakhs to Rs.1400 lakhs/Rs.2500 lakhs.
The petitioners challenged this fourth tender and argued that drastically increased package size raised the financial eligibility criteria, making it impossible for small and medium contractors including themselves to compete. They contended that the change was arbitrary, violated earlier assurances given in court and was contrary to decentralized waste management principles emphasized governmental manual.
ISSUES
- Whether the change of the tender from ward-wise to multiple wards can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable?
- Can the change in the financial aspect of the tender and the technical requirement can be said to be manifestly arbitrary on account of the said change excluding the petitioners, thereby violating Article-14 of the Constitution of India?
- Whether, if there is any legal infirmity in the nature of the tender or its process requiring interference at the hands of this Court?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Constitution Of India, 1950: Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21. ( Right to equality, Right to trade, Right to life)
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner: Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel was appearing for the petitioners. The counsel contended that the tendering history showed a consistent approach until, 2025 were always issued in 89 smaller packages covering 243 wards. However, the sudden consolidation into 33 packages each containing 7 to 8 wards represented a drastic departure from the earlier structure. They argued that this change was not based on any fresh study or administrative justification and hence was arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the assurances given by the respondents in earlier proceedings, especially the affidavit dated in 13.11.2024 filed in W.P. No. 2935 of 2023 stating that that 89 package model was scientifically structured and optimal.
The petitioners had asserted that this restructuring had significantly increased the tender value raising the financial threshold eligibility, hence the base cost of the tender has been increased from Rs.400/Rs.500 lakhs to Rs.1400/2500 lakhs and on that ground. The counsel submits that the shifting of the tender from ward wise to multiple wards is arbitrary and unreasonable made to favour larger contractors. This is in turn, increased technical requirements relating to prior experience, machinery, manpower effectively preventing small and medium scale contractors like the petitioners from participating. They argued that the effect of the tender was exclusionary and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, because it dismissed competition and favoured large business entities. He relies upon decision of this Court in Electronic Enterprises vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. ILR 1994, Kar 125 and argued that eligibility criteria should be such that competition is to be encouraged. The eligibility restriction should not be stringent to reduce area of competition. The Courts should discourage such restriction which would reduce competition and deprive opportunity to qualified persons from competing in tender proceedings. The petitioners relied on National Highways Authority of India vs. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited, 2018 (8) SCC 243 and submitted that submits that the object of tender process is not only to adhere to transparency but also encourage competition. The petitioner also stated the case of Esteco Coal Services Limited vs. The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and Others 1996 SCC Online Kar 413, where an eligibility condition requiring specific experience was struck down as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioners argued that clubbing several wards to create disproportionately large packages and setting inflated eligibility threshold had the direct effect of suppressing healthy competition, making the tender unconstitutional.
Respondents: The respondents represented by the State and Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limit (BSWML), argued that the issuance, structuring and modification of tender fall entirely in the realm of administrative and policy discretion and the courts must restraint unless malafides arbitrariness or illegality is proved. The respondents submitted that the previous tenders had been withdrawn or lapsed naturally for instance the tender dated 07.11.2024 which expired on 23.1.2025 necessitating a fresh tender processed. They further explained that the shift from smaller ward-wise packages to larger multi-ward clusters was done to improve operational efficiency, streamline supervision, and strengthen accountability given the chronic inefficiencies in Bengaluru’s waste-management system. The restructuring therefore policy decision made in public interest and could not be characterized as arbitrary.
The respondents maintained that no contractor, including the petitioners, was excluded, because the new tender expressly permitted consortium bidding of up to five entities. By forming five consortiums the contractors would pool in their technical and financial capacities to meet the revised eligibility criteria. Therefore, grievance of the petitioners had no legal basis. The respondents emphasized that no mala fide intention or any favoritism was alleged or established against any specific bidder.
The respondents relied on PTR Exports vs Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 268 and stated that the Government is not bound by the previous policy. It can always revise its policy, so long as the policy is in public interest and such change in policy is not an abuse of power. In BALCO Employees Union vs Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, economic policies are not amenable for judicial review unless such policy is demonstrably shown to be contrary to any statutory provision of the Constitution. The respondents as well relied on Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs State of Karnataka & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 216, which held that fixing tender conditions, including eligibility criteria is entirely within the purview of executive discretion unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.
ANALYSIS
The court reviewed the tender history, the competing claim of arbitrariness, and the principle governing judicial intervention in tender matters. It held that the restructuring of tender packages falls within administrative discretion of tendering authority which aims as creating a more efficient solid waste management system. The court emphasized that improving the waste management in a metropolitan city like Bengaluru is a matter of public interest and administrative body are better equipped to determine the size and scope of tender packages.
Regarding the increased eligibility criteria, the Court observed the consortium bidding eliminated the exclusion argument, contractors could pool their financial and technical capabilities. As long as eligibility standards applied equally to all bidders, they could not strike down as violative of Article 14.
The petitioners failed to show that the change was designed to benefit any specific bidder or suppress competition. The court reiterated the judicial review in tender matter is restricted to examining arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural illegality, not substituting judicial wisdom for administrative expertise. The court found no illegality into tender or its process.
JUDGEMENT
The court dismissed the writ stating that, the shift from ward-wise to multi-ward tender packages was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The increased financial or technical requirements did not violate Article 14, as consortium bidding provides adequate opportunity for the petitioners to participate. No procedural irregularity or infirmity in the tendering process was demonstrated. And finally stated that the respondents may proceed with the tender process. In addition the court issued general directions for establishing a technologically integrated solid waste management governance framework to promote public health and uphold Article 21.
CONCLUSION
The judgement reaffirmed the narrow scope of judicial review in tender matters and upholds the administrative direction of municipal authorities in designing tenders for essential public service. The court held that although the petitioners claimed the enhanced eligibility criteria, restricted competition the restructuring was justified in public interest to ensure effective waste management system. It as well rightly observed that consortium bidding prevents the exclusion of smaller contractors. Overall absent clear proof of mala-fide or arbitrariness, the court declared to interfere with policy based tender decisions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- SOUMITA CHAKRABORTY
Click here to read more: Sri. B S Kiran Kumar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Others
