The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a writ petition challenging tender conditions imposed by Bharat Electronics Limited for the disposal and recycling of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and VVPAT units.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the eligibility criteria requiring recyclers to have facilities within Karnataka was neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, especially in view of environmental concerns and directives issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB).
The petition was filed by Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited, an e-waste recycling company, which questioned clauses in the tender notification issued through MSTC Limited. The company argued that the condition unfairly excluded recyclers operating outside Karnataka despite interstate movement of e-waste being legally permissible.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a tender floated for safe crushing and recycling of decommissioned EVMs and VVPAT units. The petitioner claimed it possessed valid authorizations under the E-Waste Management Rules and had earlier handled similar contracts, including assignments awarded by BEL itself.
However, the tender introduced Clause II.3.5, restricting participation to agencies having recycling facilities within Karnataka and approvals from the KSPCB. The company contended that the condition was territorial, exclusionary, and contrary to fair competition principles.
BEL defended the clause by arguing that disposal of EVMs and VVPAT units involved sensitive electronic waste requiring strict supervision and environmental safeguards. The PSU also pointed to previous compliance issues and notices issued by the KSPCB in earlier tenders.
What Happened During the Hearing
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinishma Technologies v. State of Chhattisgarh to argue that restrictive tender conditions affecting competition should not be sustained.
On the other hand, BEL relied on landmark Supreme Court decisions including Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters.
The respondents also informed the Court that KSPCB had specifically directed preference for Karnataka-based recyclers to ensure easier monitoring, inspection, and environmental compliance.
Court’s Key Observation
The Court observed that disposal of EVMs was not an ordinary scrap transaction, as it involved sensitive electronic components, environmental safeguards, and concerns relating to regulatory compliance and unauthorized reuse.
Justice Magadum stated that while interstate movement of e-waste may be permissible under law, such permissibility does not create an enforceable right for every recycler to participate in every tender.
The Court further noted that environmental compliance and regulatory enforceability must prevail over purely commercial considerations in matters involving hazardous electronic waste.
Importantly, the Court reiterated that a bidder cannot demand modification of tender conditions to suit its business model and that the procuring authority remains the best judge of its operational requirements.
Court’s Decision / Final Order
Dismissing the petition, the Karnataka High Court upheld the validity of the disputed tender clauses, including Clause II.3.5. The Court ruled that the conditions had a direct nexus with environmental safety, regulatory oversight, and accountability.
The Court concluded that no arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides had been established against BEL or MSTC Limited. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited v. Bharat Electronics Limited & Anr.
Case Number: WP No. 935 of 2026
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Judge: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum
Date: April 29, 2026
