Smartlens Parking Solutions Pvt Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19378 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:

¶1SMARTLENS PARKING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AT NO.137, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, 8TH PHASE, JP NAGAR, NEAR VINAYAKA THEATRE, BENGALURU - 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S. SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶2THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE (LALBAGH GARDENS) LALBAGH GARDENS BENGALURU - 560 004 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER LIKE WRIT OR ORDER THEREBY QUASH THE TENDER DATED 02.06.2026 IN TENDER NO: KSHD/2026-27/SE0578 ISSUED BY DIRECTIOR OF HORTICULTURE, LALBAGH, BANGALORE - 560 001 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order thereby quash the Tender dated

02.06.2026 in Tender No:KSHD/2026-27/SE0578 issued by Director of Horticulture, Lalbagh, Bangalore - vide Annexure-C;

b) Alternatively Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other like writ to revise clause 6 of section 3 pertaining to Mandatory Documents for Technical Bid Proposal in Tender dated

02.06.2026 in Tender No: KSHD/2026-27/SE0578 vide Annexure-C thereby restricting the experience certificate to two years and pertaining to either parking fee or entry fee collection and not both.

c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case.

¶2Respondent No.2 had issued a tender notification inviting tenders for collection of Entry fee and Vehicle Parking fee at the Lalbagh Gardens. The petitioner is before this Court contending that Clause (6) of Section 3A of Technical Proposal Submission Form is arbitrary and violative Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶3Clause (6) of Section 3A of Technical Proposal Submission Form is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

"6. Satisfactory Performance Experience Certificates in the field of Entry fee and Parking fee collection of any 3 Years in past 6 Years (i.e from year 2020-21 to 2025-26 in Government/Government Undertaking Sectors."

¶4The submission of Sri Anil Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the impugned clause is liable to be interfered with on two grounds: a. Firstly, it is contended that the tender condition requires bidder to furnish experience certificates in respect of collection of both Entry Fee and Parking Fee. According to the learned counsel, certificates issued by other Government Departments in favour of the petitioner generally pertain only to collection of Parking Fee and not to both Entry Fee and Parking Fee. b. It is submitted that the system prevailing at Lalbagh, where a composite fee is collected towards entry and parking, stands on a distinct footing and is not comparable with other parking contracts awarded by Government Departments. Hence, the petitioner would not be in a position to produce certificates evidencing experience in collection of both Entry Fee and Parking Fee. It is therefore

contended that the said condition is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. c. Secondly, learned counsel submits that stipulation requiring production of Performance Experience Certificates for a period of three years during the preceding six years is onerous and unreasonable. It is contended that no such requirement was incorporated in earlier tenders and that the said stipulation has been introduced only with a view to favour a select few tenderers. On that basis, it is urged that the condition is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. d. It is further submitted that most of the contracts awarded by Government Departments are for a period of two years and, therefore, a single Performance Certificate for a period of three years cannot ordinarily be produced by a tenderer.

¶5Heard Sri Anil Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶6Learned AGA has filed a memo enclosing the Minutes of the Meeting dated 24.06.2026. She submits that the grievances expressed by various prospective bidders during the pre-bid meeting have been considered and it has been resolved to amend Clause (6) of Section 3A of

the Technical Proposal Submission Form by substituting the expression "Entry Fee and Parking Fee" with "Entry Fee or Parking Fee".

¶7In the considered opinion of this Court, the proposed amendment substantially addresses the grievance of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner would now be entitled to submit certificates evidencing experience either in collection of Entry Fee or Parking Fee, which would be taken into consideration for the purpose of technical evaluation.

¶8Insofar as second contention regarding requirement of three years' performance experience is concerned, this Court is of the view that the same does not merit acceptance. Merely because the present tender is for a period of two years would not preclude the respondents from prescribing a higher threshold of experience for assessing the capability and competence of prospective bidders. The respondents, in their wisdom, have taken a policy decision requiring a minimum of three years' experience. Such prescription, being a matter falling within the realm of policy and tender conditions, cannot ordinarily be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless it is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational or actuated by mala fides. No such material has been placed on record in the present case.

¶9A plain reading of the impugned clause does not indicate that a single certificate evidencing three years' experience is required to be produced. The condition can reasonably be construed to mean that a tenderer may produce one or more certificates which, cumulatively, establish the requisite experience of three years. Thus, the contention that the petitioner is required to produce a single certificate covering a period of three years is misconceived and does not warrant interference.

¶10In view of the above, and placing on record the submission made by the learned AGA that Clause (6) of Section 3A of the Technical Proposal Submission Form shall be suitably amended so as to address the grievance of the petitioner, and having found no merit in the other contentions urged, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13