ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the tender notification dated 8.7.2015 bearing Ref. No. dswob/acct./cr-19/food tender/2015-16. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned tender notification is contrary to Rule 17(1)(b) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (the Rules). As the amount put to tender is more than Rupees Twelve Crores, a minimum time of 60 days from the date of publication of the tender notification should have been provided for submission of tenders, as required under Rule 17(1)(b) of the Rules. 4. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the Government has passed an order dated 24.6.2015 reducing the minimum time stipulated under Rule 17(1) of the Rules to 30 days. He submitted that the minimum time stipulated under Rule 17(1) of the Rules is for completion of the entire tender process and not for only submission of tenders. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. In support of his submission, he relied on a decision of this Court in Maruthi Sales Corporation vs. Zilla Panchayat, Tumkur, 2006 (6) Kar. L.J. 248. 5. To examine the controversy raised in this petition, it is relevant to refer to Rule 17 of the Rules which reads as follows: “17. Minimum time for submission of tenders – (1) The Tender Inviting Authority shall ensure that adequate time is provided for the submission of tenders and a minimum time is allowed between date of publication of the Notice Inviting Tenders in the relevant Tender Bulletin (and) the last date for submission of tenders. This minimum period shall be as follows.- (a) For tenders upto rupees two crores in value, thirty days. (b) For tenders in excess of rupees two crores in value, sixty days. (2) Any reduction in the time stipulated under sub-rule (1) has to be specifically authorised by an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing.” 6. A plain reading of the above Rule will show that the minimum period stipulated under Rule 17(1)(a) & (b) of the Rules is for submission of tenders and not for completion of the entire tender process. A plain reading of the above Rule will show that the minimum period stipulated under Rule 17(1)(a) & (b) of the Rules is for submission of tenders and not for completion of the entire tender process. However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Rules confers power on an authority superior to the Tender Inviting Authority to reduce the minimum time stipulated under Rule 17(1)(a) & (b) of the Rules, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing. It is necessary to state that it is open to the Tender Inviting Authority to provide more time over and above the minimum time stipulated under Rule 17(1)(a) & (b) of the Rules for submission of tenders. 7. As could be seen from the Government Order dated 24.6.2015, time stipulated under Rule 17(1) of the Rules is not specifically reduced. It only states that the entire tender process shall be completed within 30 days. It does not state the reduced time provided for submission of tenders. In my opinion, this order cannot be construed as an order under Rule 17(2) of the Rules. An order under Rule 17(2) should expressly and clearly state the reduced time provided for submission of tenders and the reasons for reduction of the statutorily fixed minimum time. 8. The decision relied on by the Government Advocate has not laid down any law. It was rendered on its own facts. 9. As the amount put to tender is more than Rupees Twelve Crores, the minimum period of 60 days should have been provided for submission of tenders. In the absence of any order passed under Rule 17(2) of the Rules reducing the minimum period stipulated under Rule 17(1) of the Rules, the impugned tender notification is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to issue fresh tender notification in accordance with law.