Karnataka High Court
WA/1441/2026 of MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED Vs M/S RAJA ELECTRICALS on 20 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010345292026 NC: 2026:KHC:37088-DB WA No. 1441 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1441 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1441 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1.
MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
(A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT
CORPORATE OFFICE
MESCOM BHAVAN
2ND FLOOR, BEJAI
MANGALURU - 575 004
REPRESENTED BY
MANAGING DIRECTOR
2.
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL (PROJECTS)
CORPORATE OFFICE MESCOM
MESCOM BHAVANA
2ND FLOOR BEJAI
MANGALURU - 575 004
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SRI AJAY PRABHU M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S RAJA ELECTRICALS
THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN
REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA H B
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
GANGARAJU K
OFFICE AT KUSHI NILAYA
14TH CROSS, SIT EXTENSION
TUMKURU - 572 103
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KALYAN R, ADVOCATE &
SRI ANAND R V, ADVOCATE)
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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:
HC-KAR
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
HC-KAR
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.
HC-KAR
8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26