Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs M/S Mp24 Construction on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB
WA No. 1729 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1729 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NO.28, VIKASA
SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.
2. STATE LEVEL DEBARMENT COMMITTEE
ROOM NO.317, 3RD FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG ALONG WITH
SUMATHY SRI. K.S. HARISH GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
KANNAN
Location: AND:
High Court of
Karnataka 1. M/S MP24 CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY (LEAD MEMBER OF CONSORTIUM WITH
RAMALINGAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD)
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE
AT NO.95, HADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHRAVANABELAOAL ROAD, BARALU POST,
CHANNARAYAATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT,
BRANCH OFFICE
B2, 1201, BRAHMAGINI, MALAGALA BDA FLATS, PHASE
2, 5TH NORTH CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU 560072
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB
WA No. 1729 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
2. KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT, SY.NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP
PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1
BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. CHIEF ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED, SY. NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP
PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST
BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010.
4. BHARAT VANIJYA EASTERN PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT 126, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR,
KOLKATA - 700073 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
5. VASANT VALAPPA NAIK,
S/O VALAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK, CHIEF ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED, SY.NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP
PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST
BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010.
6. N.SUSHELAMMA
MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA ROAD
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SY.NO.8,
SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR
ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB
WA No. 1729 of 2025
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI. PRASHANTH MURTHY S.G., ADVOCATE
FOR C/R-1
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL
(b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED
25.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGE JUDGE IN WP
No. 25668/2025 (GM-TEN) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Issue notice.
2. Sri. Prashanth Murthy S.G., learned counsel accepts notice
for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6 is dispensed
with.
NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB
HC-KAR
3. The appellant (State of Karnataka), has filed the present
appeal, impugning an interim order dated 25.09.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25668 of 2025 (GM-
TEN) and connected matters. Respondent No.1 (writ petitioner),
had filed the said writ petition, inter alia impugning the action of the
appellant not to consider its technical bid and subsequently to
blacklist the writ petitioner.
4. There is no dispute that the action of the appellant is
premised on certain allegations of inter alia furnishing false work
certificates for securing the award of the contract in question.
5. The learned counsel state that one of the questions that falls
for consideration of the learned Single Judge is, whether the State
can award a contract to L2 (Second lowest tenderer), if the writ
petitioner's tender is rejected. Apparently, the question whether in
such circumstances fresh tenders are required to be invited or
whether L2 is required to be awarded the tender, is being
considered by the competent authorities.
6. In the meanwhile, the M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited,
an undertaking of the State of Karnataka, had issued notices
NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB
HC-KAR
inviting tenders for executing other work(s). The writ petitioner
would be barred from participating in the said tenders as a
consequence of the blacklisting order impugned. Since the issue
whether the order blacklisting the writ petitioner is sustainable, is
being examined by the learned Single Judge; the learned Single
Judge has issued an interim order, observing that the decision of
the competent authority on the question whether the tender is
required to be awarded to L2 or whether fresh tenders are required
to be called, would be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.
7. Additionally, the Court also permitted the writ petitioner to
participate in the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam
Limited, but clarified that the petitioner's participation would be
subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions. It was also
clarified that the writ petitioner would not claim any equities on
account of participating in the tender.
8. Mr. Kiran V. Ron, learned AAG appearing for the appellant
submits that the decision of the competent authority regarding
whether to award the contract to L2 or issue fresh tenders, is a
separate decision and the same cannot be subject matter of
NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB
HC-KAR
decision in the pending writ petition. He also assails the interim
order insofar as it permits the writ petitioner to participate in the
tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited.
9. Insofar as the first issue is concerned - whether the decision
of the competent authority to award the contract to L2 or issue
fresh tenders - is concerned, it is clear that the same would
necessarily have to be subject to the orders passed in the writ
petitions. This is so because the writ petitioner's tender has in
effect been rejected on the ground of the complaints received and
the backlisting order. If the backlisting order is set aside, the writ
petitioner would be entitled for being considered for award of the
contract. In such circumstances, the question of awarding the
contract to L2 or issuing a fresh tender, need not arise.
10. Given the fact that the learned Single Judge has placed the
matter for consideration on 05.11.2025, we do not consider it
apposite to interfere with the interim arrangement, at this stage.
11. Insofar as the second issue is concerned - that is, permitting
the writ petitioner to participate in tenders floated by M/s. Cauvery
Niravari Nigam Limited, - the learned Single Judge has amply
NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB
HC-KAR
clarified that the same would be subject to the outcome of the
petitioner's challenge. Further, the writ petitioner would not claim
any equities or any advantage of the interim order except to the
extent that it removes the disability in participating in the tender on
account of the blacklisting order. The rationale of issuing such
directions is apparent. If the writ petitioner was to succeed in the
writ petition and the blacklisting order is set aside, the writ
petitioner could not be visited with any disadvantages on that
account.
12. Undeniably, permitting the petitioner to participate in such
tenders, may create some uncertainty in the finalisation of the
tenders. However we do not consider it apposite to examine the
said question, as the writ petitions are listed by the Learned Single
Judge for final hearing on 05.11.2025. Thus, the apprehension that
there may be a delay at this stage, is unfounded. However, if the
petitions are not disposed of and it is likely that finalisation of the
tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited would be
delayed, the appellant would have the liberty to apply afresh.
NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB
HC-KAR
13. The apprehension that the decision of the writ petitions may
be delayed on account of any delay by the competent authority
(State Cabinet) to take a stand, is also unfounded.
14. As noticed above, the writ petitioner's challenge is premised
on actions taken by the appellant against the writ petitioner. Thus,
irrespective of whether the State Cabinet takes a decision within
time or not, the same would not impede the learned Single Judge
from taking up the final hearing of the writ petitions, as scheduled.
15. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KS
