[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Ramalingam Construction Company ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
WP No. 24912 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.24912 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. RAMALINGAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.1, NR TOWER
BINNY MILL ROAD,
K.H. RANGANATHA COLONY,
BENGALURU - 560 023,
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MANAGER TENDERS.
....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SHRI. ASHWIN C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.335, 3RD FLOOR
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
WP No. 24912 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. MP 24 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD
NO.95, HADENAHALLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA
SHRAVANABELAGOLA ROAD
HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 135
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR KANTHARAJA H.M.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SHRI. MANJUNATH B., AGA FOR R1;
SHRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. PRASHANTH MURTHY S.G., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13.08.2025 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 DEBARRING THE PETITIONER FOR A
PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM ALL PWD WORKS IN KARNATAKA
STATE FROM 13.08.2025 FOR ALLEGEDLY HAVING SUBMITTED
FAKE DOCUMENTS IN THE TENDER FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
ROAD FROM DEVANAHALLI - VEMAGAL - KOLAR STATE
HIGHWAY - 96 UNDER PPP-DBFOMT- HYBRID ANNUITY MODE
(HAM) COPY OF THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.PWD
203 BMS 2025, BENGALURU DATED 13.08.2025 AT ANNEXURE
-A; AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
WP No. 24912 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is assailing the
Government order bearing No.PWD 203 BMS 2025 dated
13.08.2025 (Annexure-A), passed by the respondent No.1
debarring the petitioner for a period of two years, from all PWD
works in the State of Karnataka for allegedly submitting fake
documents in the tender for development of road as per
Annexure-B.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this
Writ Petition are that, the respondent No.2 had invited tender
dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure-B) for development of road from
Devanahalli - Vemagal - Kolar of State Highway - 96. Pursuant
to the same, the petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (Annexure-C) dated 02.04.2025 with respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
No.3 to participate as a consortium in the name and style of
MP24CC-RCCL JV, as the respondent No.3 requested the
petitioner to assist / advice in the development work. In terms
of the Memorandum of Understanding, as a standard
procedure, petitioner had entered into joint bidding agreement
dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure-D) and power of attorney dated
11.04.2025 (Annexure-E), with the respondent No.3. It is the
case of the petitioner that, the role of the petitioner in the
consortium was limited and the nature of function of the
petitioner is only advisory / support to respondent No.3, being
a non active partner in the consortium as to participate for bid
of the project. It is also resolved between the petitioner and
respondent No.3 that all the bid documents of the consortium
would be prepared and submitted by the respondent No.3 for
the purpose of participating in the bid for the project. The
petitioner has pleaded the calendar of events at paragraph
No.10 of the Writ Petition, with regard to the tender document.
3. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner
is having share holding of 26%, being a non active partner with
the respondent No.3. It is further pleaded in the Writ Petition
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
that the respondent No.3, neither responded nor furnished any
bid related documents to the petitioner for inspection of
documents to be uploaded at the time of participating in the
tender process and as such, the petitioner was constrained to
withdraw from the consortium as per e-mail dated 16.04.2025
(Annexure-F). It is the allegation of the petitioner that despite
the petitioner had withdrawn from the consortium formed
between itself with the respondent No.3, however, the
respondent No.3 fraudulently participated in the bid as a lead
bidder presenting the petitioner as a joint venture bidder, even
after express revocation by the petitioner. The petitioner came
to know about the fraudulent act of the respondent No.3 only
when the respondent No.2 had visited the petitioner's Office
seeking certain additional information and verification of
documents after the respondent No.3 submitted the bid as a
consortium along with petitioner. It is further stated that, since
the respondent No.3 failed to respond to the e-mail dated
16.04.2025 and as such, the petitioner caused legal notice
dated 27.04.2025 (Annexure-G), terminating the Memorandum
of Understanding dated 02.04.2025 and revoked the power of
attorney dated 11.04.2025. It is alleged in the Writ Petition
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
that, respondent No.3 has intentionally and fraudulently
continued to participate in the financial bid which was held on
16.05.2025 by misrepresenting that the petitioner - Company
continued to be member of consortium. It is stated that, the
consortium of the petitioner and the respondent No.3 was
declared as L1 bidder despite the petitioner withdrawing from
the consortium. It is further stated that, the petitioner has
addressed letter dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure-H) to the
respondent No.2 requesting to reject the tender submitted by
the respondent No.3 as it was done in a fraudulent manner
without the knowledge of the petitioner. In the meanwhile,
respondent No.1 issued notice dated 24.07.2025 to the
petitioner alleging submission of fake documents by the
consortium to secure tender fraudulently and as such, the
petitioner was directed to appear before the State Level
Debarment Committee on 01.08.2025. The petitioner had
received the notice through e-mail on 30.07.2025 (Annexure-
J). Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the State Level
Debarment Committee and filed detailed response / reply dated
01.08.2025 (Annexure-K). It is further stated in the Writ
Petition that, the petitioner gave a detailed response regarding
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
revocation of Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Bidding
Agreement and Power of Attorney with the respondent No.3. It
is the grievance of the petitioner that the State Level
Debarment Committee constituted by respondent No.1, without
considering the documents produced by the petitioner, has
mechanically recommended for action against the petitioner as
per S.14-A(2) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KTPP
Act') and Rule 26B of the Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KTPP
Rules'). Based on the recommendation made by the State Level
Debarment Committee, respondent No.1 has passed the
impugned order at Annexure-A without providing fair
opportunity to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has presented this Writ Petition.
4. I have heard Shri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri. Ashwin C., learned counsel
for the petitioner, Shri. Kiran V. Ron, Additional Advocate
General along with Shri. Manjunatha D., learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Shri. Veeresh R.
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
Budihal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and
Shri. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of Shri. Prashanth Murthy S.G., learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:
5. Shri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, while referring to the State Level
Debarment Committee Meeting Minutes dated 12.08.2025,
submitted that, the petitioner herein has been debarred for a
period of two years from all PWD Works in the State of
Karnataka, on the ground of 'connivance', being a member of
the Consortium with the respondent No.3. It is argued by the
learned Senior Counsel by referring to the notice dated
24.07.2025 (Annexure-J), wherein the petitioner has been
directed to appear before the State Level Debarment
Committee, wherein, Agenda to the Meeting was not made
known to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel by referring to the preliminary response to the
Meeting Notice dated 24.07.2025, as per Annexure-K dated
01.08.2025, the petitioner has clearly made known to the
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
respondent-authorities as to limited functioning of the
petitioner in the consortium as the respondent No.3 which was
the lead member of the consortium, had uploaded the required
material to the tender document. He further contended that,
though the petitioner has withdrawn Memorandum of
Understanding, Joint Bidding Agreement and the Power of
Attorney much before the closing of submission of bid
documents in the portal of the tender project, the respondent
No.3 had uploaded fake documents on the portal using the
credentials of the petitioner without its knowledge and
therefore it is contended that, the petitioner is not liable for
uploading fake documents and accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court.
6. Referring to the e-mail dated 16.04.2025, learned Senior
Counsel submitted that, the petitioner with abundant caution
addressed letter (Annexure-H) dated 22.05.2025 to the
respondent - Corporation about the misdeeds of the respondent
No.3 and the said aspect of the matter has been ignored by the
respondent - authority. Emphasising on proviso to Section 14-
A(2) of the KTPP Act, it is contended by the learned Senior
Counsel that, the respondent - State ought to have provided
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before
issuing the impugned order at Annexure-A. Inviting the
attention of the Court to Rule 26B(2) of the KTPP Rules, it is
contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, blacklisting a
company is nothing but a civil death in a commercial world and
therefore, the respondent - authorities ought to have extended
fair opportunity to the petitioner. It is further argued that, the
Annexure-A issued by the respondent - authorities is not an
administrative order but by exercising quasi-judicial function
and as such, the respondent - authorities ought to have
maintained complete fairness in their procedural aspects. It is
further contended that, the recommendations of the State Level
Debarment Committee was not made known to the petitioner
and therefore, the State Government ought to have put the
petitioner in notice of the contents of the recommendation
made therein and the proposed punishment which the State
Government eventually inflicted on the petitioner is in gross
violation of the procedure adopted by the respondent -
authorities, as per Section 14-A of the KTPP Act. It is argued
that the entire action of the respondents in issuing the
impugned order at Annexure-A requires to be set aside on the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In this
regard, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner places reliance
on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vs. B.
Karunakar and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and
by referring to paragraph 26 therein, it is contended by the
learned Senior Counsel that, the respondent - authorities have
deprived fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in that
view of the matter, principles of natural justice is curtailed to
the petitioner.
7. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel by
referring to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Chintamanrao Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in 1950 SCC 695 and as such, it was argued that,
even in the absence of providing opportunity to an aggrieved
party in a statute, the reasonableness under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India, provides for extending opportunity of
fairness to aggrieved party. Learned Senior Counsel refers to
the principles underlying the contemplation of principles of
natural justice in an order of blacklisting, has referred to the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another reported in (2021) 1 SCC 804 and
contended that, the entire procedure adopted by the State
Level Debarment Committee and the State Government is
contrary to the principles of natural justice.
8. Nextly, by referring to the word 'connivance', learned
Senior Counsel referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail
Singh and Another reported in (1984) 1 SCC 390,
particularly referring to paragraph 30, it is argued that, in the
peculiar circumstances of the case, where the petitioner being a
member of the consortium is only an advisory to the
respondent No.3 in the tender process and having limited scope
in the consortium to an extent of 26%, and that apart, the
petitioner is unaware about uploading the fake statement in the
portal which is by an employee of the respondent No.3 and
therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
9. Nextly, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that
the decision to debar the petitioner for a period of two years
has a huge impact on the business of the petitioner and the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
action imputed must be proportionate to the delinquency
alleged against the petitioner and mere participation in the
consortium without direct involvement could not have resulted
in debarment for a future period as it fails to meet the
principles of doctrine of proportionality and therefore, learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned order requires to
be set aside.
10. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel by
referring to Rule 17 of the Karnataka Government (Transaction
of Business) Rules, 1977, which connotes State Government
means the Minister of a particular Department has to take
decision in the matter and therefore, the entire process of
issuing the impugned order at Annexure-A requires to be set
aside.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
11. Per contra, Shri. Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2 - Corporation, emphatically
denied the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and pleaded that, in terms of the tender document
at Annexure-B, the Memorandum of Understanding, Joint
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
Venture and the Power of Attorney executed between the
petitioner and the respondent No.3 means one unit together
and therefore, the petitioner being a member of the Consortium
has to undergo debarment as per the terms and conditions of
the tender document at Annexure-B. In this regard, learned
counsel for the Corporation, while referring to the description of
bidding process and by referring to Section 2.1.9, Section
2.1.15(f) and (g), argued that, since the bidder in the instant
case is a consortium and considering the matter as per Section
2.2.1 of the tender document which provides for determining
the eligibility and qualification requirements of bidder, it is
argued that the respondent - authorities rightly rejected the bid
of the petitioner at the threshold as the respondent No.3 has
uploaded statement which was per se misrepresenting or
fraudulent act on the part of the consortium and as such,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation
invited the attention of the Court to Section 2.6.2 of the tender
document(Annexure-B). It is further argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation, with
regard to evaluation of technical bid and financial bid, that the
petitioner is aware about the misdeeds of respondent No.3
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
while uploading the fake document(Annexure-F1) itself on
16.04.2025, however, informed the respondent - Corporation
belatedly on 22.05.2025 (Annexure-H) and as such it could be
concluded that, if the petitioner is a fair personality as
contended by the learned Senior Counsel, there was no
impediment for the petitioner to mark the copy of Annexure-F1
to the respondent - Corporation immediately and therefore it is
contended by the learned counsel for the respondent -
Corporation that, the impugned order passed by the respondent
at Annexure-A is just and proper. He further contended that,
bid document was uploaded on 16.04.2025 by consortium
consisting of petitioner and respondent No.3, however, the
technical bid was opened on 19.04.2025, and therefore, if the
letter/e-mail dated 16.04.2025 addressed to the respondent
No.3 had been made known to respondent No.2 - Corporation
by the petitioner immediately, the case of the petitioner would
have been accepted for extending fairness in the action and in
that view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondent -
Corporation, sought for dismissal of the petition as the
petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and
has further suppressed the materials before this court.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
12. It is the categorical argument of the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 that, until the respondent - Corporation
received the letter dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure-H) from the
petitioner, the respondent - corporation was not aware of the
strained relationship between the petitioner and the respondent
No.3. Nextly, by referring to paragraph 13 of the averments in
the Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent - Corporation that, the Writ Petition requires to be
dismissed on the ground of misrepresentation, as the petitioner
has not approached the Court with clean hands and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. It is
further averred that the entire facts revolve around the
contractual obligations between the parties and therefore,
exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is very limited and as such, the Writ Petition requires
to be dismissed.
13. Shri. Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent - State, reiterates the submission
made by Shri. Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent - Corporation and further submitted that, as
the petitioner is a member of the consortium along with
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
respondent No.3 and as such, the petitioner is liable for
disqualification in view of uploading of a fake document by the
Consortium, and in this regard, the respondent - State, having
taken note of the factual aspects on record and on deliberation
based on the recommendation made by the State Level
Debarment Committee, disqualified and debarred the petitioner
for two years which requires to be confirmed as the petitioner
along with respondent No.3 as a consortium, knowing fully well,
uploaded a fabricated document which is a clear violation of the
terms and conditions of the tender document at Annexure-B
and therefore, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
14. In respect of the submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner as to not extending fair opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, while referring to Section 14-A of
the KTPP Act and Rule 26B of the KTPP Rules, it is argued by
the learned Additional Advocate General that, as the language
employed in the aforesaid provisions are clear, plain and
unambiguous, then the legislative intent has to be given effect
to and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the
intention of the makers by filling up gaps in between the words
of the enactment, while exercising writ jurisdiction and as such,
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of B. Premanand and Others Vs. Mohan Koikal
and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 266, and on the case
of State of Jharkhand and Another Vs. Govind Singh
reported in (2005) 10 SCC 437. In so far as the quantum of
punishment is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General
places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Managobinda
Samantaray reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 284 and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
15. Shri. S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.3, denied the allegation made by the petitioner
as to uploading the fake certificate by the respondent No.3,
however, contended that, as the employee of the respondent
No.3, without the knowledge of the respondent No.3 uploaded
the fake certificate and therefore, submitted that the
contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner cannot be accepted. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not extended
fair opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3
before issuing the order of blacklisting and debarment from
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
participating in the tender process of the Government and
therefore, sought for quashing the impugned order at
Annexure -A.
ANALYSIS:
16. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined
the finding recorded by the respondent - State in the impugned
order at Annexure-A as to blacklisting the petitioner and the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties. Perused the records made available by the respondent
No.2 - Corporation. The undisputed facts are that, the
respondent No.2 - Corporation has invited tender for
development of road from Devanahalli - Vemagal - Kolar of
State Highway - 96 as per Request For Proposal dated
25.02.2025 (Annexure-B). The petitioner had entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure-
C) with the respondent No.3 - Company to participate as a
member of the consortium in the name of 'MP24CC-RCCLJV'. It
is also not in dispute that, the petitioner had entered into a
Joint Bidding Agreement dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure-D) and
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
executed Power Of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure-E)
with the respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that,
the petitioner had limited liability to an extent of 26% in the
consortium and was only a non-active partner with limited
scope of being an advisory support to the respondent No.3.
Hence, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that, the petitioner being a non-active member of the
consortium and not aware about the fraudulent act on the part
of respondent No.3 in uploading the fabricated document and
therefore, sought for interference of this Court. It is also the
case of the petitioner as per paragraph No.13 of the Writ
Petition that, the officials of respondent No.2 - Corporation had
visited the office of the petitioner, made aware about the
fabrication of the document by respondent No.3 and as such,
the petitioner has approached the respondent - Corporation on
22.05.2025 (Annexure-H).
17. In view of the above statement made by the petitioner,
the respondent No.2 has categorically denied the visit of their
officials to the office of the petitioner. In this regard, the core
question to be answered in this Writ Petition is, as to, whether
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
blacklisting of the petitioner by the respondent No.1 as per
Annexure-A, requires interference by this Court?
18. It is pertinent to mention here that, the terms and
conditions stipulated at Annexure-B, plays vital role to assess
the credibility of the petitioner in the tender process. Perusal of
Section 1.2.1 of Annexure-B indicates that, the respondent
No.2 adopted a single stage two envelope process for selection
of the bidder for award of the project. The intending bidders
shall pay non-refundable sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as the bid
document fee to the respondent - Corporation. Eligible and
qualified bidder will be first examined based on the details
submitted under first envelope (technical bid) with respect to
their eligibility and qualifications criteria as per the bid
document. The second envelope (financial bid) shall be opened
only of those bidders who were declared eligible and qualified in
the technical bid. The Schedule of Bidding Process is provided
under Section 1.3 of the tender document. It is also to be noted
that, provision has been made for bidding individually as well
as through consortium. In order to understand the terms and
conditions of the Tender document as to assess the credibility
and fairness in the procedure in the tender process, some of
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
the terms and conditions are relevant and are hereby extracted
for the purpose of adjudication of the Writ Petition.
19. Section 2.1.9, which reads as under:
"In case the Bidder is a Consortium, the
Members thereof should furnish a Power of
Attorney in favour of any Member, which Member
shall thereafter be identified as the Lead Member,
in the format at Appendix - VI. In case the Bidder
is a Consortium, Joint Bidding Agreement in the
format at Appendix V shall be submitted by the
Bidder."
20. Section 2.1.15(f) provides that members of a consortium
shall form an appropriate special purpose vehicle to execute the
project, if work order is awarded to the consortium. Section
2.1.15(g) provides for members of the consortium shall enter
into a binding Joint Bidding Agreement as per appendix-V to
the bidding document and same shall be submitted to the
respondent - Corporation. Section 2.2.1(a)&(b) provides as
follows:
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
"2.2.1 For determining the eligibility of the Bidder the
following shall apply:
(a) The Bidder may be a single entity or a group of
entities (the "Consortium"), coming together to
implement the Project. However, no Bidder
applying individually or as a member of a
Consortium, as the case may be, can be member
of another Bidder. The term Bidder used herein
would apply to both a single entity and a
Consortium.
(b) Bidder may be a natural person, private entity, or
any combination of them with a formal intent to
enter into a Joint Bidding Agreement or under an
existing agreement to form a Consortium. A
Consortium shall be eligible for consideration
subject to the conditions set out in Clause 2.1.15."
21. Section 2.6.2 provides as follows:
"The Authority reserves the right to reject
any Bid and appropriate the Bid Security if:
(a) at any time, a material misrepresentation is
made or uncovered, or
(b) the Bidder does not provide, within the time
specified by the Authority, the supplemental
information sought by the Authority for evaluation
of the Bid.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
Such misrepresentation/ improper response shall
lead to the disqualification of the Bidder. If the
Bidder is a Consortium, then the entire Consortium
and each Member of the Consortium may be
disqualified / rejected. If such disqualification/
rejection occurs after the Bids have been opened
and the lowest Bidder gets disqualified/rejected,
then the Authority reserves the right to annul the
Bidding Process and invites fresh Bids."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Perusal of the aforementioned provisions make it clear
that, if a bidder is a consortium and indulged in
misrepresentation, shall lead to the disqualification of the
bidder. Consortium in true sense, means each member of the
consortium, irrespective of their active / non active / limited /
lead bidder / advisory or any of incidental nature of
participation would suffer penalty of disqualification, being a
member of the consortium. Section 2.11.2 of the tender
document provides for furnishing the original document to the
respondent - Corporation by the bidder including all the
members of the consortium and Section 2.11.5 provides for
unconditional debarment in case of failure to comply with
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
Section 2.11.2. Section 3.2.1(e) provides for test of
responsiveness in which, the Lead Member of Consortium shall
file the Power of Attorney and the Joint Bidding Agreement as
per Section 2.1.9. Section 4.1 of the tender document provides
for disqualification of the bidder in case of indulging in fraud
and "corrupt practices". The aforementioned document being
accepted by the consortium consisting of the petitioner and the
respondent No.3 as one unit, must face all consequences
together in the event of any action by them which is contrary to
the tender document. To elaborate in detail, according to the
petitioner, the petitioner came to know about the uploading of
fabricated document by the respondent No.3 and as such
immediately, sent an e-mail dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-F),
admittedly, to the respondent No.3, however, the said e-mail
was not marked or sent to the respondent No.2 - Corporation
for the reasons best known to the petitioner. It is forthcoming
from the letter dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure-H), wherein, the
petitioner had informed the respondent - Corporation with
regard to withdrawal of Joint Bidding Agreement and the
Power of Attorney belatedly, of course, after a period of one
month and as such, requested the respondent - Corporation to
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
reject the tender. If at all the petitioner was more cautious
about its stand in making allegation against the respondent
No.3 as to uploading fake certificate, nothing prevented the
petitioner to inform the respondent - Corporation on the very
same day i.e., on 16.04.2025 as the technical bid was opened
on 19.04.2025 and in this regard, the conduct of the petitioner
has to be deprecated. It is also to be noted that, the date of
submission of tender/bid through online was 16.04.2025. The
technical bid was opened on 19.04.2025 as per Section 1.3 of
the tender document (Annexure-B), and if at all the petitioner
had notified to the respondent - Corporation about the
fraudulent act on the part of respondent No.3 at the earliest as
to uploading of fabricated document, the respondent -
Corporation ought to have had taken appropriate decision at
the juncture in the matter. The perusal of the writ papers and
the records, makes it clear that, the petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the
facts as to knowledge of uploading of fabricated document for a
considerable period till the opening and conclusion of the
technical bid and therefore, the entire act of the petitioner
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
cannot be accepted to grant equitable relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
23. Nextly, in so far as submission of not providing fair
opportunity to the petitioner as contended by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully
examined the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1.
No doubt, blacklisting of the petitioner is a serious action taken
by the respondent No.1, which per se amounts to civil death in
a commercial arena, however, it is a well established principle
in law that no person shall be condemned unheard and fair
hearing shall be extended to all the persons concerned who are
aggrieved of action by the respondent-authorities. The perusal
of the impugned order at Annexure-A, would indicate that the
respondent-authority has debarred the petitioner for a period of
two years, from all PWD works in the State of Karnataka. The
respondent No.1, has imposed punishment, on account of its
involvement in connivance with the respondent No.3. On
perusal of paragraph 30 of the Judgment in Charanlal Sahu
supra, the petitioner being a member of "consortium" with the
respondent No.3, in participating in the bid shall follow all the
consequences as per the terms and conditions of the tender
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
document as stated above, and therefore, the said judgment is
not applicable to the case on hand. In so far as the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vetindia
Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra) as to blacklisting of the
bidder in the tender process, therein, the provisions of the
Drugs Act was considered, however, in the present case the
uploading of fabricated documents by the respondent No.3 was
well within the knowledge of the petitioner as per Annexure-F
and being a member of consortium, same was intimated by the
petitioner to the respondent - Corporation on 22.05.2025
(Annexure-H) belatedly after the conclusion of technical bid and
therefore, the above Judgment is not applicable to the facts of
the case. The petitioner has failed to provide adequate reasons
for delay in informing the respondent No.2 - Corporation, and
intimated the respondent No.2 - Corporation, only after
conclusion of the technical bid and the said fact makes it clear
that the petitioner has acted as a fence sitter to see the result
of the technical bid, so also, awaited the action that may be
taken by respondent-Corporation against the respondent No.3,
and therefore, the petitioner having not approached the Court
with clean hands, cannot be permitted to allege that the
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
respondents have not afforded opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, as the end result would be same as to disqualify the
petitioner, being a member of the consortium in terms of the
conditions of the tender document at Annexure-B. It is also
forthcoming from the paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition that,
the petitioner has stated that, the petitioner was aware about
uploading of the fabricated document by the respondent No.3
only when the officials of the respondent No.2 had visited their
office, which contention is totally misconceived and
misrepresentation before this Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case as the petitioner was aware about
the uploading of the fabricated documents prior to 16.04.2025
as per its e-mail sent to the respondent No.3 and therefore, the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted.
24. It is also to be noted that, on analyzing the facts of the
case, microscopically, indisputably in the present case, the
parameters of extending fairness has been met in as much as,
issuing show-cause notice (Annexure-J) dated 30.07.2025
through e-mail, requiring the petitioner to appear before the
State Level Debarment committee on 01.08.2025 and in
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
response to the same, the petitioner has filed preliminary
response dated 01.08.2025 wherein, at paragraph 10 of the
preliminary response dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure-K), the
petitioner himself admits about uploading of fabricated
documents by respondent No.3, which reads as under:
"Since MP24 failed to respond to the Email dated
16.04.2025 and had misused the credentials of
RCCL for uploading bid Documents for the Tender as
a Consortium, RCCL through its Advocate issued a
Legal notice dated 27.04.2025 terminating the MoU
dated 02.04.2025 and following Documents which
were executed for the Project. Copy of the Legal
notice dated 27.04.2025 is enclosed herewith as
Document No.7."
(emphasis supplied)
25. The aforementioned aspect makes it clear that, as the
petitioner being a member of "consortium" has made serious
allegations against the respondent No.3, for their illegal act of
uploading the fabricated document and thereby, revoked the
Power of Attorney and Memorandum of Understanding, would
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
substantiate the fact of element of misrepresentation as per
Section 4 of the Tender document at Annexure-B and it is
pertinent to mention here that, Section 2 of the Appendix-V
stipulates that, once the consortium is formed by one or more
entities and participated in the bidding process together,
thereafter, the members to the consortium are barred from
revoking the joint venture/ power of attorney/ MOU, having
entered into with another entity of the consortium, after filing
of the tender document with the respondent - Corporation. It
also to be noted from Section-5, of Appendix-V, reads as
under:
"5. Joint and Several Liability
The Parties do hereby undertake to be jointly and
severally responsible for all obligations and liabilities
relating to the Project and in accordance with the
terms of the RFP and the Concession Agreement, till
such time as the Financial Close for the Project is
achieved under and in accordance with the
Concession Agreement."
(emphasis supplied)
26. Perusal of the aforementioned aspect would indicate that,
even if the State Government had given time for the petitioner
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
to have its say in the matter by extending personal hearing,
however, the end result would be same as it is evident from the
terms and conditions of the terms and conditions of the tender
document and its consequence in view of the relationship
between the petitioner and respondent No.3 as a consortium
and their liability based on Joint Venture Agreement, Power of
Attorney/MOU, which binds both the petitioner and the
respondent No.3 being a consortium (one unit) to be debarred
together on account of misrepresentation and violating the
terms and conditions of the tender document at Annexure-B.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that, Providing opportunity is
only an empty formality to meet the principles of natural justice
in the peculiar circumstances of the case as the impugned order
of blacklisting was passed at Annexure-A, after considering the
response/reply dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure-K) addressed by
the petitioner, and therefore, the arguments advanced by the
learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be
accepted. Accordingly, the Judgment referred to by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner in B. Karunakar case
(supra), is not applicable to the facts of the case as the
petitioner himself has approached this Court with unclean
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
hands by making allegation against respondent No.2, as per
paragraph 12 to 14 which itself is contrary to their e-mail dated
16.04.2025 addressed to respondent No.3. In this regard, it is
relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias
Brijram & Others reported in (1974) 1 SCC 242, wherein, it
is held that, admission in pleading are juridical pleadings and
evidentiary in nature and same has to be accepted. The
aforementioned principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sangramsinh P Gaekwad &
Others v. Shantadevi P Gaekwad (Dead) Through LRS.
and Others reported in (2005) 11 SCC 314. Following the
aforesaid judgments, as the petitioner admits in the writ
petition as to uploading the fake documents, I am of the
opinion that, the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel is
devoid of merits.
27. It is categorically addressed by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that, the respondent No.3 has
committed fraud in uploading fake documents and as such, the
petitioner being a member of consortium, has to follow the
consequence in terms of the tender document at Annexure-B.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Rubber
(India) Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others reported
(2012) 8 SCC 216, wherein it is held that, in a case of tender
process, where the contractual obligation between the parties
had arisen out of the documents and as such, the Court cannot
interfere with the terms of tender prescribed by the respondent
tendering authority and therefore, on careful consideration of
the terms and conditions of the tender documents referred to
above, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this
Writ Petition. It is also to be noted that, the arguments
advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as to
competency of the Government to pass appropriate order as
per Section 14-A of the KTPP Act and Rule 26B of the KTPP
Rules has to be in consonance with Section 17 of the Karnataka
Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977, cannot be
accepted as the petitioner has approached this Court with
unclean hands as per the averments made in the Writ Petition,
and the reasons as stated above (infra).
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subodh
Kumar Singh Rathour vs. Chief Executive Officer and
others reported in AIR 2024 SC 3784, after considering the
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
scope of judicial review in the matters pertaining to contractual
disputes, in detail held that, the judicial review is permissible to
prevent arbitrariness of public authorities and to ensure that,
they do not exceed or abuse their powers in contractual
transaction, particularly, action of State Government relating to
tender process.
CONCLUSION:
29. In the case of Amar Singh v. Union of India & Others
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 69, it is held that, the aggrieved
party must come with clean hands before approaching the writ
Court to claim equitable relief and in the event of misleading
the Court or making misrepresentation of facts, shall not be
entitled for relief, and as such, following the said declaration,
the petitioner is not entitled for relief under Article 226 of
Constitution of India.
30. In the result, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits, in as
much as, the impugned order has been passed after issuing
show-cause notice, so also, considering the reply dated
01.08.2025 filed by the petitioner (Annexure-K) and for the
foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is liable is rejected.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51930
HC-KAR
31. It is further made clear that, the reasons assigned by this
Court while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in
W.P.No.25668/2025 and connected matters, has to be read
along with this order, as the respondent No.3 in the present
Writ Petition is Writ Petitioner in those petitions.
32. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55
