Condition Applies Uniformly To All Bidders: Karnataka High Court Upholds Tender Clause Restricting EVM Recycling Bids To Karnataka-Based Facilities

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging Clause Nos. II.3.1, II.3.2, II.3.3 and II.3.5 of a tender notification issued for safe crushing and recycling of EVMs and VVPAT units. The petitioner-company contended that the impugned clauses unlawfully excluded interstate recyclers despite statutory provisions permitting interstate movement of e-waste.

A Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed: “The requirement that participating agencies must have recycling facilities within the State of Karnataka is founded on a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, ensuring effective monitoring, regulatory supervision, and strict compliance with environmental norms as mandated by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.”

The Court further observed: “The condition applies uniformly to all bidders and is neither tailor-made to exclude the petitioner nor demonstrably mala fide.”

Senior Advocate G.L. Vishwanath appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Lakshmi Iyengar appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petitioner-company, engaged in the business of e-waste recycling, challenged the legality of tender conditions introduced in a tender floated for safe crushing and recycling of decommissioned EVMs and VVPAT units.

According to the petition, the petitioner possessed valid authorisations under the E-Waste (Management) Rules and had previously participated in similar tenders floated across the country, including earlier tenders issued by Bharat Electronics Limited.

The principal challenge was directed against Clause II.3.5, which mandated that only agencies having recycling facilities within Karnataka and approvals from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) would be eligible to participate.

The petitioner contended that the condition was territorial, exclusionary and violative of fairness and competition principles, particularly when the statutory framework governing e-waste permitted interstate movement and processing.

The respondents defended the tender conditions by contending that the tender did not concern ordinary scrap disposal but involved environmentally sensitive and highly regulated disposal of EVMs and VVPAT units requiring close monitoring and regulatory supervision.

The respondents further pointed out that earlier tenders had resulted in repeated compliance notices and regulatory scrutiny by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.

Court’s Observation

The High Court reiterated the settled principles governing judicial review in tender matters and observed that constitutional courts exercise extremely limited scrutiny over tender conditions.

Referring to Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012), the Court observed that the tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements and courts ought not interfere unless conditions are arbitrary, mala fide, tailor-made or contrary to statutory provisions.

The Bench observed that the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, recognises both transparency and autonomy of procuring entities to prescribe conditions rationally connected with procurement objectives.

The Court noted that the records disclosed repeated compliance issues in earlier tenders, which had led to intervention by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The Court observed that the Pollution Control Board had specifically insisted upon preference being given to Karnataka-based recyclers in order to facilitate effective monitoring and environmental compliance.

The Bench observed: “The condition requiring in-state facilities is thus not a standalone commercial stipulation but a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental governance.”

The Court further observed that disposal of EVMs and VVPAT units involved handling of sensitive electronic components and required prevention of unauthorised reuse or data compromise apart from compliance with environmental norms.

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance upon FAQs issued by the Central Pollution Control Board permitting the interstate movement of e-waste. The Court held that the statutory permissibility of interstate movement did not translate into an enforceable right to participate in every tender irrespective of operational and regulatory considerations.

The Bench observed: “Permissibility under law does not translate into enforceable entitlement to participate in every tender. The tendering authority retains discretion to impose conditions based on operational exigencies.”

The Court further held that a prospective bidder does not possess a right to compel modification or tailoring of tender conditions to suit its business model. The Bench observed: “Participation in a tender is not a fundamental right but a conditional privilege subject to eligibility criteria.”

The Court also took note of the fact that Bharat Electronics Limited was a premier public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture of sensitive electoral instruments such as EVMs, and observed that any lapse in the disposal of scrap EVMs could expose the organisation to serious regulatory and operational consequences.

The Bench observed that environmental compliance and regulatory enforceability stand on a “higher pedestal” when dealing with hazardous waste and sensitive electronic materials.

Before concluding, the Court observed: “The insistence on localised facilities is not a mere administrative preference but a regulatory necessity aimed at ensuring continuous oversight, environmental safety, and accountability.”

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court held that the impugned tender conditions, including Clause II.3.5 requiring Karnataka-based recycling facilities, were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and had a rational nexus with environmental supervision and regulatory compliance objectives.

The Court further held that Bharat Electronics Limited was entitled to prescribe eligibility conditions aligned with its operational requirements and obligations under the regulatory framework governing the disposal of e-waste.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned tender clauses were upheld as valid and enforceable.

Cause Title: Evergreen RecycleKaro India Limited v. Bharat Electronics Limited & Anr. (WP No. 935 of 2026) (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:24464)

Appearances

Petitioner: G.L. Vishwanath, Senior Advocate; Advocate Abraham Joseph

Respondents: Lakshmi Iyengar, Senior Advocate; Advocates Ludhveena Luthria, H.M. Muralidhar

Click here to read/download Judgment