ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. 1. The petitioners are before this court seeking following prayer: a. “Issue a writ of mandamus declaring all the process of tender in pursuance of the tender notification dated 25-02-2205 vide annexure-a after expiry of validity period as illegal and arbitrary, in the interest of justice and equity. b. Issue a direction to the 3 rd and 4 th respondent to call for the fresh tender for sandy quarry lease in terms of karnataka transparency in public procurement (kttp) act, 1999 and allied rules, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Sunil S. Desai, appearing for the petitioners, and the learned Senior Counsel Sri S. S. Yedrami for Sri S. V. Yaji, representing respondent No. 5 and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, also appears for respondents No. 1 to 4. 3. Respondents No.3 and 4 issued an e-tender notification inviting applications from eligible tenderers for quarrying and leasing of sand blocks. The petitioners and respondent No.5, both finding themselves eligible, submitted their tender documents pursuant to the said notification. This fact is not in dispute. 4. The issue in the present lis pertains to the tender process being taken to its logical conclusion, allegedly in contravention of Rule 22 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000, (for short, ‘the Rules of 2000) the applicable Rules, and the circulars issued thereunder. 5. Pursuant to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court had earlier granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings in the tender process. The said interim order continues to remain in force even as on date. 6. Learned counsel Sri Sunil S. Desai, takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the validity period of the tender is 90 days, which expired on 01.04.2025. However, the process of finalizing the tender was initiated only in the month of July 2025, long after the expiry of the stipulated validity period. It is, therefore, contended that the action of the respondents is contrary to the circular and the law laid down by this Court and its Coordinate Benches interpreting the said circular. 7. However, the process of finalizing the tender was initiated only in the month of July 2025, long after the expiry of the stipulated validity period. It is, therefore, contended that the action of the respondents is contrary to the circular and the law laid down by this Court and its Coordinate Benches interpreting the said circular. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri S. S. Yedrami appearing for respondent No.5 vehemently refutes the submissions and contends that there is no hard and fast rule mandating that the tender must be concluded within 90 days. A certain play in the joints must be allowed to the State, as administrative delays may sometimes prevent completion within the stipulated period. 8. He further submits that, based on a work order issued in June 2025, respondent No.5 has invested about Rupees 1 crore and, therefore, the tender process should not be disturbed. 9. It is also submitted that the rigour of Rule 22 of the 2000 Rules is diluted by sub-rule (2), which provides for extension of the validity period. The learned Senior Counsel contends that, this being a contractual matter, the writ jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked to interfere at every stage of the tender process. 10. Learned Senior Counsel also draws attention to the tender document, which permits the District Sand Committee to extend the validity period as per Rule 22 of the Rules of 2000. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.5 and seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 13. The facts narrated above are not in dispute. The tender notification clearly stipulates that the validity period is 90 days. The technical bid was opened on 01.04.2025. 14. This Court, in the case of M/s. Sree Bhyaraveshwara Electrical Works, Proprietorship Concern Vs. The Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), disposed of on 26.04.2025 in W.P. No. 9975/2025, while interpreting the relevant Rule and Circular, has held that the tender process must be concluded within the stipulated validity period, failing which the process becomes invalid. The of this Court reads as follows: 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Rule 22 of the *KTPP Rules forms the fulcrum of the lis. The of this Court reads as follows: 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Rule 22 of the *KTPP Rules forms the fulcrum of the lis. I therefore, deem it appropriate to notice Rule 22. It reads as follows: “22. Time taken for evaluation and extension of tender validity:- (1) The evaluation of tenders and award of contract shall be completed, as far as possible, within the period for which the tenders are held valid. (2) The Tender Accepting Authority shall seek extension of the validity of tenders from the tenderers for the completion of evaluation, if it is not completed within the validity period of tender. (3) In case the evaluation of tenders and award of contract is not completed within extended period, all the tenders shall be deemed to have become invalid and fresh tenders may be called for.” (Emphasis supplied) Rule 22 deals with time taken for evaluation and extension of validity of tenders. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 mandates that tenders and award of contract shall be completed within the period for which the tenders are held valid. Therefore, the completion of tenders is linked to the validity of tender; SubRule (2) permits to seek extension of validity of tender, if it is not completed within the period of validity and Sub-Rule (3) observes that if it is not completed even in the extended period, all the tenders are deemed to have become invalid and fresh tenders may be called. The unmistakable inference can be drawn from the said Rule is that, the tender should be completed within the period of validity of a tender or the extended period as the case would be. If it is not complete, the tender is deemed shelved. The subject tender is notified on 24.10.2024. The opening of the technical bid takes place on 21.11.2024. Clause 7 of the tender depicts bid validity.It reads as follows: (Emphasis added) Clause 7 depicts the validity of the tender to be 180 days from the date of opening of the techno-commercial bids. Therefore, it is 180 days from the date of opening of the technical bid, which is on 21.11.2024 and if 180 days is calculated from 21.11.2024, the Tender Accepting Authority can scrutinise the tender and take to its logical conclusion on or before 20.05.2025, this would be 180 days from 21.11.2024. Therefore, it is 180 days from the date of opening of the technical bid, which is on 21.11.2024 and if 180 days is calculated from 21.11.2024, the Tender Accepting Authority can scrutinise the tender and take to its logical conclusion on or before 20.05.2025, this would be 180 days from 21.11.2024. Thus, the scrutiny of the tender documents now being done at the hands of the Tender Accepting Authority is clearly within the validity period of 180 days. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 22 as is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. Heavy reliance is placed by the petitioner upon a circular of the Government issued on 29.11.2021, which deals with opening and processing of tenders – specifying the timelines. The circular reads as follows: “Sub: Opening and Processing of tenders – Specifying the timelines. **** 1. The Procurement Entity as defined under Section 2(d) of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 is required to procure goods and services only by inviting the tenders as per the procedure outlined in the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and Rules, 2000. Rule 28 of KTPP Rules, 2000 prescribes that evaluation of tenders and award of contract shall be completed as far as possible, within the period for which the tenders are held valid. Hence, in order to complete the evaluation of technical and financial bids in a time bound manner and to ensure transparency in the procurement process, it has been felt necessary to prescribe the timelines for each stage of the evaluation of the tender. 2. In view of the above, the detailed timelines for each activity are prescribed as bellow; 2. In view of the above, the detailed timelines for each activity are prescribed as bellow; 3. Any relaxation in the above timelines shall be specifically authorised by the authority superior to the Tender Accepting Authority for the reasons to be recorded in writing.” The circular is said to be interpreting the Rule. While so interpreting, draws up certain illustrative timeline. The illustrative timeline fixes 90 days as the maximum period in which the tender should be taken to the logical conclusion. This can at best be considered to be an illustration. An illustration by way of a circular cannot override the purport of the Rule. The Rule nowhere depicts that the tender should conclude within 90 days . The illustrative timeline fixes 90 days as the maximum period in which the tender should be taken to the logical conclusion. This can at best be considered to be an illustration. An illustration by way of a circular cannot override the purport of the Rule. The Rule nowhere depicts that the tender should conclude within 90 days . The circular depicts so. The circular at best can be applicable to the cases where the validity of a tender notified is 90 days but the validity of the tender is beyond 90 days. The circular would not become applicable to those tenders, which have the validity period beyond 90 days. In the case at hand, the validity period is 180 days, therefore, the Tender Scrutiny Authority has timeline of 180 days to scrutinise the tender and take it to its logical conclusion. The 180 days as observed hereinabove would end on 20.05.2025. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the respondent in continuing the tender beyond the period of 90 days. 9. I therefore, declare that Rule 22 is applicable qua the validity of the tender document. If the validity is 90 days, the tender should be completed within 90 days, likewise, if the validity is 180 days, the tender should be completed within 180 days. A circular interpreting otherwise, will have no legs to stand in the teeth of the Rule. At best, it would be a restrictive application where the validity period of any tender would be 90 days. Thus, tumbles down the imaginary statutory aberration. 15. If the law so laid down is applied to the facts of the present case, the 90-days period would have expired on 25.06.2025. However, the documents appended to the petition clearly show that the lottery to award the contract was scheduled on 16.07.2025, which is well beyond the validity period. 16. It is, therefore, inexplicable as to how the authorities could have proceeded with the tender after the expiry of the stipulated period. The circular is a reflection of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2000, and the Rule in turn is incorporated in the tender document itself. Once the validity period has lapsed, any further proceedings in the tender process would be contrary to law. Hence, the impugned tender process cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 17. The circular is a reflection of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2000, and the Rule in turn is incorporated in the tender document itself. Once the validity period has lapsed, any further proceedings in the tender process would be contrary to law. Hence, the impugned tender process cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 17. However, liberty is reserved to the State–respondents to re-notify the tender if they so desire, in accordance with law. 18. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that all tenderers have deposited Rs.25,00,000/- as EMD and furnished Rs.75,00,000/- as Bank Guarantee. If a fresh tender notification is to be issued, the said amounts may be permitted to be adjusted towards the new tender. Otherwise, the respondents shall refund the said amounts to the respective tenderers in accordance with law, so that they are not driven to approach this Court again for a direction to that effect. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings arising from tender notification in Annexure-A stands quashed. iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to re-notify the tender, if they so desire, in accordance with law. iv. The EMD and Bank Guarantee amounts deposited by the tenderers shall be adjusted towards the ensuing tender or refunded in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.