1 Reserved on :
07. 06.2024 R Pronounced on :
21. 06.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.2867 OF2024(GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. KTR CONSTRUCTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.484, A AND B BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR CHITRABHANU ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSURU – 570 023 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. K.T.RAMESH ... PETITIONER (BY SRI YASHODHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AJAY N.NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(BUILDINGS) VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 2 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RAMANAGARA SPECIAL DIVISION RAMANAGARA – 562 159. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT
ORDERBEARING NO.LOE219BMS2023 BENGALURU DTD1101.2024 ISSUED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON0706.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDERThe petitioner-M/s KTR Constructions is before this Court calling in question a Government Order dated 11-01-2024 which debars the petitioner for three years from participating in any tenders of Government.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Yashodhar Hegde, appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Smt Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 3
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner is a Partnership Firm and is a licensed Class-I civil contractor. It is the claim of the petitioner that it has been entrusted with various projects over the years in Bangalore, Mysore and Ramanagara Districts. Documents to that effect are also appended to the petition. The petitioner claims that it periodically undertakes several projects with the Governmental Authorities and as on date has undertaken project works of several crores. The petition also enlists number of works undertaken by the petitioner with the Government which are 16 in number ranging from 19-03-2017 to 09-03-2023. The issue in the lis would commence from 09-03-2022 when the 2nd respondent/Public Works Department issues a notice inviting tender for improvement of road of NH275to SH33which passes through Kengal, Dasavara, Makali, Ujjaani, Kamplapura in Channapatna Taluk. The petitioner participates in the tender; emerges as the successful bidder as it was the lowest bidder. Thereafter the petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee as necessary in the conditions of tender. A bank guarantee was so furnished by the Firm for a sum of 4 `2,95,00,000/- which was submitted by one of the officers of the Firm. Based upon receipt of the bank guarantee and all nuances of tender being completed, the 2nd respondent issues work order in favour of the petitioner.
4. On 05-09-2023 two fresh bank guarantees were issued drawn from Union Bank of India. On 18-10-2023 the petitioner requests for extension of time for completion of tender work which was considered by the respondents and time was extended. It appears on the same day, the petitioner is informed that a complaint is received from Contractor Welfare and Recreation Club urging that the petitioner has furnished fake bank guarantee. The petitioner was then is said to have been called upon to submit its explanation. On 21-10-2023, the 2nd respondent issues a notice seeking clarification on the complaint. The petitioner clarifies that it was the fault of a particular employee who had submitted the bank guarantee. The petitioner immediately addresses a letter to the Union Bank of India and gets an appropriate bank guarantee and submits it to the 2nd respondent explaining the circumstances under which the bank guarantee was re-sought. Accepting the said 5 communication, the 2nd respondent communicates a letter extending the time for completion of tender work up to 22-04- 2024. What comes about later after such extension is the impugned order, by which the petitioner has been debarred from participation in any tender of the Government for a period of three years. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel Sri Yashodhar Hegde, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the notice so issued to it did not mention that it would be barred. It was only seeking clarification with regard to the complaint so registered concerning furnishing of a fake bank guarantee. The petitioner explained the circumstances, furnished an appropriate bank guarantee, which is accepted by the 2nd respondent and time for completion of work was extended. With all these factors, the petitioner was given to understand that no action would be taken. But, the action is taken debarring it from participating in any tender of Government, for a period of three years, without issuing any show cause notice of 6 such debarment. It is his submission that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had furnished a fake bank guarantee from Union Bank of India. On verification it was found that the bank guarantee so submitted was fake. The verification was required as a complaint comes about on such fake bank guarantee being furnished. It is his submission that in such cases no notice need be issued. Even otherwise, the petitioner has been informed and three days time was granted to submit its explanation. Therefore, it is in compliance with the principles of natural justice. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7
8. The link in chain of events and the dates on which those events have occurred are all a matter of record. They need not bear reiteration. The petitioner had emerged as the successful bidder and was awarded contract on receipt of a bank guarantee on 13-01-2023. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the said bank guarantee. On 05-09-2023 the petitioner furnishes two fresh bank guarantees – one for `22,60,000/- and the other for `2,72,40,000/- issued by the Union Bank of India. This was owing to a request of the petitioner seeking extension of time to complete the tender work. The communication by the petitioner on 18-10-2023 reads as follows: “ಸ(cid:3)ಾಯಕ(cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)(cid:9)ಾಲಕಅ(cid:12)ಯಂತರರು (cid:17)ೋ(cid:7)ೋಪ(cid:22)ೕ(cid:23)ಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆ , ಉಪ(cid:27)(cid:28)ಾಗಚನ ಪಟ"ಣ , $ಾನ%&ೆ : (cid:27)ಷಯ (cid:7)ಾ(cid:17)ಾವ)(cid:27)ಸ*+,(cid:7)ೊಡುವಬ/ೆ0 G¯ÉèÃR: PÁAiÀiÁðzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:22/2022-23 ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.01.2023 Improvements to Road From NH-275 to SH-33 via Kengal Dashavara-Makali-Ujjani-Kamplapur from ch:
8. 00 km to 20.00 km in Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District. (Indent No.148533). ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, Improvements to Road From NH-275 to SH-33 via Kengal Dashavara-Makali-Ujjani-Kamplapur from ch:
8. 8.00 Km to 20.00 km in Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District. (Indent No.148533), (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯು mÉAqÀgï DzÁsgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀUÉ PÁAiÀiÁðzÉñÀ 2ೕ3ದು5, (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯು 67ಾಂಕ 22.10.2023 ರಂದು ಪ8ಣ(cid:8)/ೊ9ಸ:ೇ(cid:7)ಾ(cid:23)ತು*, (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯು ಪ;ಗ<ಯ=>ದು5 ಈ/ಾಗ(cid:17)ೇ ಒಂದ7ೇ :ಾಗಶಃ CD ಅನು ಸ=>,ದು5 ಉ9ದ (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯನು 2ವ(cid:8)EಸುವFೇGೆಯ=>ಚು7ಾವHೆIೂೕಷHೆJಾ(cid:23)ದು5ಸು$ಾರುಮೂರು<ಂಗಳLಗಳ . (cid:7)ಾಲ (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯನು ಸM(cid:23)ತ/ೊ9ಸ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)ತು* ಚು7ಾವHೆ ಮು(cid:23)ದನಂತರ (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯನು , (cid:9)ಾ;ರಂ(cid:12)ಸಲು(cid:3)ೋNಾಗ$ಾನ%$ಾOಮುಖ%ಮಂ<;ಗಳL(cid:3)ಾಗುQಾಸಕರುಚನ ಪಟ"ಣ(cid:27)Rಾನಸ(cid:28)ಾ Sೇತ; ರವದು ಮತು* ಸM9ೕಯ /ಾ;ಮಸMರು ಮನ(cid:27) $ಾ3ದೂ5 ಎಲ> /ಾ;ಮ ಪ+t< ಯ=> ಚರಂ3Uಂದ 14.45 Km ಚರಂ3ಯವ&ೆಗೂರVೆ*ಯನು ಅಗ=ೕಕರಣ/ೊ9ಸ:ೇ(cid:7)ೆಂದುಮತು*ರVೆ*ಯಸರವ9 ನ=> . CಎWVಾ>XಕಲYZ(cid:8)ಅನು ಮರು2$ಾ(cid:8)ಣ$ಾಡ:ೇ(cid:7)ೆಂದು<9,ರು[ಾ*&ೆ ಅದುದ+ಂದ67ಾಂಕ 28.06.2023 ರಂದು ಅ)ೕ\ಕ ಇಂO2ಯ]., (cid:17)ೋ, E, :ೆಂಗಳ^ರು ವೃತ* :ೆಂಗಳ^ರು ರವರು ಪ+(cid:27)ೕ\Hೆ $ಾ3ದು5(cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)(cid:9)ಾಲಕಅ(cid:12)ಯಂತರರುಮತು*ಸ(cid:3)ಾಯಕ(cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)(cid:9)ಾಲಕಅ(cid:12)ಯಂತರರು(cid:27)ವ+,ದಂ[ೆ ‘ೕಲaಂಡ(cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯಅ[ಾ%ವಶ%ಕFಾ(cid:23)ರುವbದನು ಗಮ2ಸ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)ದು5ಈ(cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+/ೆಉದc(cid:27)ಸುವ , , . (cid:3)ೆಚುdವ+ಪ+$ಾಣಗಳನು ವe(cid:8),>fಮತು*ಇಐಆ].ಎDಒಳ/ೊಂಡಂ[ೆಪ+ಷiತಅಂNಾಜು ತJಾ+,ನಕ;ಮ(cid:9)ಾ;)(cid:7)ಾರ6ಂದಅನುkೕದ7ೆಪlೆದುನಂತರ(cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯನು 2ವ(cid:8)Eಸಲು . ಸೂm,ರು[ಾ*&ೆ ಅದುದ+ಂದ (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯನು 2)(cid:8)ಷ" (cid:7)ಾ(cid:17)ಾವ)ಯ=> ಮು(cid:23)ಸಲು . . , Vಾಧ%Fಾಗ6ರುವbದ+ಂದ ನನ/ೆ ವe(cid:8) ,>f ಮತು* ಇಐಆ].ಎD ಅನು ತು[ಾ(cid:8)(cid:23) . $ಾ3(cid:7)ೊಡ:ೇ(cid:7)ೆಂದು ಮತು*(cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯನು ಪ8ಣ(cid:8)/ೊ9ಸಲುನನ/ೆಇನು ಆರು<ಂಗಳLಗಳ(cid:7)ಾಲ . ದಂಡರEತFಾ(cid:23)(cid:7)ಾ(cid:17)ಾವ)ಯನು (cid:27)ಸ*+,(cid:7)ೊಡ:ೇ(cid:7)ೆಂದುತಮo=>(cid:7)ೇ9(cid:7)ೊಳLp[ೆ*ೕ7ೆ ವಂಧ7ೆಗGೆ^ಂ6/ೆ ಇಂ<ತಮo(cid:27)Rೇಯ ¸À»/- PÉ n gÀ« PÉ n Dgï PÀ£Àì÷ÖçPÀë£ïì.” On the same day, the petitioner receives a notice. The notice reads as follows: “«µÀAiÀÄ:- Improvements to road from NH-275 to SH-33 via kengal dasavara makali ujjanni kamplapura 9 from ch 8.00 to 20.00 in channapatana taluk . (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯ(cid:7)ಾJಾ(cid:8)Nೇಶಪlೆಯಲುಸ=>,ರುವ:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಬ/ೆ0 :- 1. G¯ÉèÃR F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:1519/2022-23 ¢£ÁAPÀ:03.01.2023 2. , , 2ೕವbಈಕsೇ+/ೆಸ=>,ರುವಕ7ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ:ಾ%ಂe,ದt=ಂಗಪbರQಾ(cid:25)ೆ :
00018. /22-23 ‘ೖಸೂರುಇ=>ನ:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಸಂ(cid:25)ೆ% ಮತು* 000184/22- 23 ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.01.2023 3.F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ (cid:7)ಾJಾ(cid:8)Nೇಶ ಸಂ(cid:25)ೆ%:22/2022-23 ¢£ÁAPÀ:
21. 01.2023 4. , , ಅಧ%\ರುಕಂ|ಾ;ಕ"].FೆD}ೇ].ಅಂ~+(cid:127);(cid:128)ೕಷ(cid:129)ಕ>Xಚನ ಪಟ"ಣ ರವರ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.09.2023 ***** ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, Improvements to road from NH-275 to SH-33 via kengal dasavara makali ujjanni kamplapura from ch 8.00 to 20.00 in channapatana taluk PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ (cid:7)ಾJಾ(cid:8)Nೇಶ ಪlೆಯಲು ವ%[ಾ%ಸದ (4) , kಬಲಗು(cid:3)ಾಗೂಭದ;[ಾ(cid:131)ೇವ(cid:132)(cid:9)ಾವ<ಸುವಸಂಬಂಧಉ(cid:17)ೆ>ೕಖ ರ=>ಅಧ%\ರುಕಂ|ಾ;ಕ"].FೆD , " }ೇ].ಅಂ~+(cid:127);(cid:128)ೕಷ(cid:129)ಕ>Xಚನ ಪಟ"ಣರವರುಈಕsೇ+/ೆಪತ;2ೕ3 ‘‘‘‘ೕೕೕೕಲಲಲಲaaaaಂಂಂಂಡಡಡಡ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾಮಮಮಮ////ಾಾಾಾ++++////ೆೆೆೆ (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾJJJJಾಾಾಾ(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)NNNNೆೆೆೇೕೕೕಶಶಶಶಪಪಪಪllllೆೆೆೆಯಯಯಯಲಲಲಲುುುು::::ಾಾಾಾ%%%%ಂಂಂಂeeee2222ಂಂಂಂದದದದ::::ಾಾಾಾ%%%%ಂಂಂಂeeee////ಾಾಾಾ%%%%ರರರರಂಂಂಂrrrrಅಅಅಅಥಥಥಥFFFFಾಾಾಾ(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆ(cid:135)(cid:135)(cid:135)(cid:135)~~~~llllೆೆೆೆ}}}}ಾಾಾಾ,,,,ZZZZಅಅಅಅನನನನುುುು ಪಪಪಪllllೆೆೆೆಯಯಯಯNNNNೆೆೆೇೕೕೕ [[[[ಾಾಾಾFFFFೆೆೆೇೕೕೕನನನನಕಕಕಕ====::::ಾಾಾಾ%%%%ಂಂಂಂeeee////ಾಾಾಾ%%%%ರರರರಂಂಂಂrrrrಸಸಸಸೃೃೃೃ(cid:136)(cid:136)(cid:136)(cid:136)"""",,,,ತತತತಮಮಮಮooooಇಇಇಇ(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)ಾಾಾಾ(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:25)ೆೆೆೆ////ೆೆೆೆಸಸಸಸ====,,>>,,>> ತತತತಮಮಮಮooooಇಇಇಇ(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)ಾಾಾಾ(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:25)ೆೆೆೆ////ೆೆೆೆಮಮಮಮತತತತುುುು****ಸಸಸಸ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾ(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)ರರರರ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆaaaa " ವವವವಂಂಂಂಚಚಚಚ7777ೆೆೆೆ $$$$ಾಾಾಾ3333 ‘‘‘‘ೕೕೕೕಲಲಲಲaaaaಂಂಂಂಡಡಡಡ (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾಮಮಮಮ////ಾಾಾಾ++++ಯಯಯಯ (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾJJJJಾಾಾಾ(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)NNNNೆೆೆೇೕೕೕಶಶಶಶ ಪಪಪಪllllೆೆೆೆ6666ರರರರುುುು[[[[ಾಾಾಾ*&*&*&*&ೆೆೆೆ ಎಂದು ದೂರು ಅO(cid:8) " ಸ=>,ರು[ಾ*&ೆಮತು* ‘‘‘‘ೕೕೕೕಲಲಲಲaaaaಂಂಂಂಡಡಡಡ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾಮಮಮಮ////ಾಾಾಾ++++ಯಯಯಯ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾJJJJಾಾಾಾ(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)NNNNೆೆೆೇೕೕೕಶಶಶಶವವವವನನನನುುುು ರರರರದದದದುುುುಪಪ55ಪಪ55 3333,,,,ಅಅಅಅವವವವರರರರ‘‘‘‘ೕೕೕೕ(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)ೆೆೆೆ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾನನನನೂೂೂೂನನನನುುುು " . ++++ೕೕೕೕತತತತ%%%%ಕಕಕಕ;;;;ಮಮಮಮ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೈೖೖೖ////ೆೆೆೊೂೂೂಳಳಳಳpppp::::ೆೆೆೇೕೕೕ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆಂಂಂಂದದದದುುುು (cid:7)ೋ+ರು[ಾ*&ೆ 3 ಆದ5+ಂದಸದ+ದೂ+ನಬ/ೆ02ಮoಸಮ(cid:137)ಾU(cid:136)ಯನು ಈಪತ;ತಲು(cid:134)ದ 6ನಗಳ . ಒಳ/ಾ(cid:23)=(cid:138)ತ ಮೂಲಕಈಕsೇ+/ೆಸ=>ಸುವಂ[ೆಸೂm,Nೆ ¸À»/- (cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)(cid:9)ಾಲಕಅ(cid:12)ಯಂತರರು (cid:17)ೋ(cid:7)ೋಪ(cid:22)ೕ(cid:23)ಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆ,(cid:27)Qೇಷ(cid:27)(cid:28)ಾಗ ,” &ಾಮನಗರ The notice narrates that Contractor Welfare and Recreation Club, Channapatna has alleged that the petitioner has furnished a fake 10 bank guarantee. The notice directed explanation within three days. The petitioner then replies on 21-10-2023 after verification of records and the reply reads as follows: “ರವ+/ೆ, (cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)(cid:9)ಾಲಕಅ(cid:12)ಯಂತರರು, (cid:17)ೋ(cid:7)ೋಪ(cid:22)ೕ(cid:23)ಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆ, &ಾಮನಗರ(cid:27)Qೇಷ(cid:27)(cid:28)ಾಗ &ಾಮನಗರ, ZÀ£ÀߥÀlÖt. , $ಾನ%&ೆ : Improvements to road from NH-275 to SH-33 via (cid:27)ಷಯ kengal dasavara makali ujjanni kamplapura from ch 8.00 to 20.00 in channapatana taluk (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯ . (cid:7)ಾJಾ(cid:8)Nೇಶಪlೆಯಲುಸ=>,ರುವ:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಬ/ೆ0 G¯ÉèÃR:- 1. ಕ7ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ :ಾ%ಂe, ,ದ5=ಂಗಪbರ Qಾ(cid:25)ೆ, ‘ೖಸೂರು ಇ=>ನ :ಾ%ಂe /ಾ%ರಂr ಸಂ(cid:25)ೆ%:000185/22-23 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 000184/22-23 ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.01.2023 2. : . / .. / .. / / / ತಮoಕsೇ+ಯಪತ;ಸಂ(cid:25)ೆ% (cid:7)ಾಇಂ(cid:17)ೋಇ(cid:27)Qೇಷ(cid:27)(cid:28)ಾಗ&ಾ(cid:17)ೆQಾ C. O/2023-24:1015 ¢£ÁAPÀ:18-10-2023. **** ‘ೕಲaಂಡ (cid:27)ಷಯ(cid:7)ೆa ಸಂಬಂ),ದಂ[ೆ ‘ೕ=ನ (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ ಸಂಬಂಧ (cid:7)ಾJಾ(cid:8)Nೇಶ (1) ಪlೆಯಲುವ%[ಾ%ಸದkತ*(cid:3)ಾಗೂಭದ;[ಾ(cid:131)ೇವ(cid:132)kತ*(cid:7)ೆaಉ(cid:17)ೆ>ೕಖ ರಅನYಯ:ಾ%ಂe , , : /ಾ%ರಂrಗಳನು 2ೕಡ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)ದು5ಈ/ಾಗ(cid:17)ೇ(cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಪ;ಗ<ಯ=>ದು5kದಲ7ೇ(cid:3)ಾಗೂ(cid:28)ಾಗಶCD . (2) ಅನು ಸಹ(cid:27)(cid:28)ಾಗಕsೇ+/ೆಸ=>ಸ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)ರುತ*Nೆಮುಂದುವ&ೆದುಉ(cid:17)ೆ>ೕಖ ರಅನYಯತಮoಕsೇ+ಯ ಪತ;ದ=>‘ೕ=ನ(cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+/ೆ2ೕ3ರುವವ%[ಾ%ಸದkತ*(cid:3)ಾಗೂಭದ;[ಾ(cid:131)ೇವ(cid:132)kತ*ದಎರಡು . , , COಗಳLನಕ=ಎಂದುಅಧ%\ರುಕಂ|ಾ;ಕ"].FೆD}ೇ].ಅಂ~+(cid:127);(cid:128)ೕಷ(cid:129)ಕ>Xಚನ ಪಟ"ಣರವರು :-15.09.2023 , 67ಾಂಕ ರಂದುದೂರು2ೕ3ರು[ಾ*&ೆಎಂದುನನ/ೆ7ೋrW2ೕ3ದು5 ಈಬ/ೆ0ನನ ಕsೇ+ಯಕಡತಗಳನು ಪ+(cid:141)ೕ=ಸ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)7ಾನುಅ7ಾ&ೋಗ%2(cid:142)ತ*(cid:27)Qಾ;ಂ<ಯ=>ಇNಾ5ಗ‘ೕಲaಂಡ , . (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯ(cid:7)ಾJಾ(cid:8)Nೇಶಪlೆಯಲು:ಾ%ಂe2ಂದCOಗಳನು ಪlೆದು(cid:27)(cid:28)ಾಗಕsೇ+/ೆಸ=>ಸಲು . ನನ ಕsೇ+ಯ,ಬ(cid:143)ಂ6/ೆವE,Nೆ5ೕನುಅದರಂ[ೆಸದ+,ಬ(cid:143)ಂ6ಯು:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಯನು :ಾ%ಂe . 2ಂದಪlೆದುಸ=>,ರು[ಾ*&ೆ ಈನಡುFೆಸದ+,ಬ(cid:143)ಂ6ಯು(cid:25)ಾಸ(cid:23)(cid:7)ಾರಣಗಳ2(cid:142)ತ*ರ(cid:137)ೆ(cid:7)ೇ9 , ನಂತರಇದ5(cid:127)aದ5ಂ[ೆನನ ಕsೇ+ಯ(cid:7)ೆಲಸCಟು"ಕಣo&ೆJಾ(cid:23)ದು5 k:ೈDಕೂಡ,Y(cid:144)ಆ(cid:145) . $ಾ3ರು[ಾ*&ೆ ಈಬ/ೆ07ಾನುಕsೇ+ಯ=>ಇತ&ೆ,ಬ(cid:143)ಂ6ಗಳನು (cid:27)(cid:146)ಾ+ಸ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)ಈ‘ೕಲaಂಡ 11 (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+/ೆ2ೕ3ರುವ:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಗಳನು ನಕ=ಎಂದುಅವರುಗಳ(cid:3)ೇ9(cid:7)ೆUಂದ<9ದು . ಬಂ6ರುತ*Nೆ ಈಎಲ>:ೆಳವ(cid:132)/ೆಗಳನು 7ಾನುಅ+ತುಈ/ಾಗ(cid:17)ೇಪlೆ6ದ5:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಗಳ :ಾ%ಂe(cid:25)ಾ[ೆಯನು ಮು(cid:7)ಾ*ಯ/ೊ9ಸು<*ರುವbNಾ(cid:23)<9,ಈEಂNೆ2ೕ3ದ5:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಗಳನು . Eಂಪlೆದು(cid:3)ೊಸ:ಾ%ಂeನ/ಾ%ರಂrಗಳನು ಪlೆದುತಮoಕsೇ+/ೆಈ/ಾಗ(cid:17)ೇ ಸ=>ಸ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)ರುತ*Nೆ ಈ‘ೕ=ನಎಲ>(cid:27)ಷಯಗಳನು ತಮ/ೆಈಮೂಲಕತರಬಯಸುತ*ನನ ಕsೇ+ಯ,ಬ(cid:143)ಂ6Uಂದ ಆ(cid:23)ರುವತ(cid:134)(cid:147)/ೆ(cid:3)ೊಸ:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಗಳನು ಈ/ಾಗ(cid:17)ೇ2ೕ3ರುವbದ+ಂದಈ(cid:27)(cid:146)ಾರವನು ಇ=>/ೆ . ಮು(cid:7)ಾ*ಯ/ೊ9ಸ:ೇ(cid:7)ೆಂದುಈಮೂಲಕತಮo=>(cid:7)ೋ+(cid:7)ೊಳLp[ೆ*ೕ7ೆ ಇಂ< ತಮo «±Áé¹.” The petitioner replies that one of the persons of the Firm who was in-charge of nuances of fulfilling the conditions of tender had been ill and, therefore, the mistake had crept in by one of the employees of the Firm by name K. S. Rajappa who had secured this bank guarantee and furnished. After receipt of the reply a report is secured by the Superintending Engineer regarding the bank guarantee holding that the Union Bank of India has failed to confirm genuinity of the bank guarantee. It is then the 2nd respondent writes to Union Bank of India seeking extension of fresh bank guarantee. The communication of the 2nd respondent to the Union Bank of India reads as follows: , “ವ%ವVಾMಪಕರು Union Bank of India, NO.1751. Kalyani, Vidya Nagar. K.R Road, 12 Mandya-571401 , $ಾನ%&ೇ : . (cid:27)ಷಯ :ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrನ(cid:27)ೕಕರಣ(cid:7)ೋ+ : :
01392. GL0001623 ಉ(cid:17)ೆ>ೕಖ ತಮo:ಾ%ಂ(cid:127)2ಂದ(cid:27)ತ+ಸ(cid:17)ಾದ:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಸಂ(cid:25)ೆ% ¢£ÁAPÀ:05-09-2023 **** Sri K.T Ravi (M/S KTR ‘ೕಲaಂಡ (cid:27)ಷಯ(cid:7)ೆa ಸಂಬಂ),ದಂ[ೆ Constructions) ರವರ (cid:3)ೆಸ+ನ=> ಈ (cid:7)ೆಳಕಂಡಂ[ೆ :ಾ%ಂe /ಾ%ರಂrಯನು ಈ (cid:7)ೆಳ(cid:23)ನ . (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+/ೆ(cid:27)ತ+ಸ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)ರುತ*Nೆ Sl. Name of work BG/FDR No.Amount Validity No 1 Improvements 01392lGL0001623 2,72,40,000/- 04-12-2023 to road from Dt:
05. 09-2023 NH-275 to SH-33 via Kengal. Dasavara- makali- ujjanni- kamplapura from ch 8.00 to 20.00km in Channapatna Taluk. Ramanagara Dist. :04.12.2023 . ಈ‘ೕಲaಂಡ:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಅವ)ಯು67ಾಂಕ (cid:7)ೆaಮು(cid:7)ಾ*ಯ/ೊಳLp<*Nೆ ಆದ5+ಂದ ಸದ+ :ಾ%ಂe /ಾ%ರಂrAiÀÄÄ 67ಾಂಕ:04,09.2024 ರವ&ೆ/ೆ ನ(cid:27)ೕಕರಣ $ಾ3 ಈ ಕsೇ+/ೆ 2ೕಡ:ೇ(cid:7)ೆಂದು F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆÃjzÉ. ತಮo(cid:27)QಾY,, ¸À»/- PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, 13 , , (cid:17)ೋ(cid:7)ೋಪ(cid:22)ೕ(cid:23)ಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆ(cid:27)Qೇವ(cid:27)(cid:28)ಾಗ . &ಾಮನಗರ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß:- ²æà PÉ. n. gÀ« (PÉ. n Dgï PÀ£ïì¸ÀÖçPëÀ£ïì), 1£Éà zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ, £ÀA.484, J & © ¨ÁèPï, avÀæ¨Ás£ÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, PÀĪÉA¥ÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÁÛ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄÄ ¨ÁåAPï UÁågÀAnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀgÀt ªÀiÁr F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ ©°è£À°è PÀmÁ¬Ä¸À¯ÁUÀĪÅÀzÉAzÄÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.” The Union Bank of India issues a fresh bank guarantee on 4-12-2023. The confirmation of such extension is as follows: “OR/MDY/01392/Gen:295:2023-24 Date:04.12.2023 To THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD SPECIAL DIVISION RAMANAGARA Dear sir, Sub: Confirmation on extension of Bank Guarantee- BG No.01392lGL0001623 With reference to the above captioned subject we hereby confirm that we have issued a Bank Guarantee bearing No.01392lGL0001623 for Rs.2,72,40,000/- (Rupees Two Crores seventy two lakhs forty thousand only) for the period up to 04.12.2023 as per the request of the M/s K T R Constructions. We hereby extend the said BG on the following terms: a. The Liability of the Guarantor under this Guarantee shall not exceed a sum of Rs.2,72,40,000/- (Rupees Two Crores seventy two lakhs forty thousand only). 14 b. The Bank Guarantee will be valid up to 04.03.2024. c. We will be liable to pay the guaranteed amount or any part thereof under this Bank Guarantee only and only if you serve upon as written claim or demand on or before the expiry of this Guarantee i.e.04.03.2024. This is for your kind information.”
(Emphasis added)The petitioner seeks extension of time to complete the tender work. Pending consideration of the said application for extension, it appears that the issue of furnishing fake bank guarantee was taken up by the Competent Authority which can be gathered from a communication by the petitioner which reads as follows: :
03. 01.2024 “ಸ(cid:7)ಾ(cid:8)ರದ (cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)ದ(cid:141)(cid:8) 67ಾಂಕ ( ) (cid:17)ೋ(cid:7)ೋಪ(cid:22)ೕ(cid:23)ಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆಸಂ&ಕ , (cid:27)(cid:7)ಾಸVೌಧ:ೆಂಗಳ^ರು , $ಾನ%&ೇ : (cid:27)ಷಯ ನಕ=:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಸ=>,ರುವಬ/ೆ0 , , ‘‘‘‘ೕೕೕೕಲಲಲಲaaaaಂಂಂಂಡಡಡಡ(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)ಷಷಷಷಯಯಯಯ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆaaaaಸಸಸಸಂಂಂಂಭಭಭಭಂಂಂಂ6666,,,,ದದದದಂಂಂಂ[[[[ೆೆೆೆತತತತಮಮಮಮooooಕಕಕಕ(cid:146)(cid:146)(cid:146)(cid:146)ೆೆೆೇೕೕೕ++++ಯಯಯಯಪಪಪಪ;;;;<<<<ನನನನಮಮಮಮ////ೆೆೆೆತತತತಲಲಲಲುುುು(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)ರರರರುುುುವವವವbbbb6666ಲಲಲಲ>>>>(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾಯಯಯಯ(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)ಾಾಾಾಲಲಲಲಕಕಕಕ , ಅಅಅಅ(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)ಯಯಯಯಂಂಂಂತತತತರರರರರರರರುುುು ದದದದೂೂೂೂರರರರFFFFಾಾಾಾ(cid:132)(cid:132)(cid:132)(cid:132) ಮಮಮಮುುುು(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:25)ಾಾಾಾಂಂಂಂತತತತರರರರ ನನನನಮಮಮಮ////ೆೆೆೆ <<<<9999,,,,ರರರರುುುು[[[[ಾಾಾಾ&&**&&**ೆೆೆೆ ಆಆಆಆದದದದ5+5+5+5+ಂಂಂಂದದದದ ನನನನಮಮಮಮ////ೆೆೆೆ ಸಸಸಸಂಂಂಂಭಭಭಭಂಂಂಂದದದದಪಪಪಪಟಟಟಟ"""" RRRRಾಾಾಾಖಖಖಖ(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)ಾಾಾಾ<<<<ಗಗಗಗಳಳಳಳನನನನುುುು ಒಒಒಒದದದದ(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)ಸಸಸಸಲಲಲಲುುುುಸಸಸಸುುುು$$$$ಾಾಾಾರರರರುುುುಒಒಒಒಂಂಂಂದದದದುುುು<<<<ಂಂಂಂಗಗಗಗಳಳಳಳ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾ(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)ಾಾಾಾವವವವ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾಶಶಶಶ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೊೂೂೂೕೕೕೕ++++ತತತತಮಮಮಮoooo====>>>>ಕಕಕಕಳಳಳಳಕಕಕಕ9999UUUUಂಂಂಂದದದದ . (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೇೕೕೕ9999(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೊೂೂೂಳಳಳಳLLLLpppp[[[[ೆೆೆೇೕ**ೕೕ**FFFFೆೆೆೆ .” ಧನ%FಾದಗಳL
(Emphasis added)15 The communication did not result in notice being issued to the petitioner seeking to show cause as to why action should not be taken for furnishing a fake bank guarantee. What comes about is the impugned order. The impugned order reads as follows: “¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¯ÉÆÃE219©JAJ¸ï 2023 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:11.01.2024 , ಪಪಪಪ;;;;VVVVಾಾಾಾ*ವ*ವ*ವ*ವ7777ೆೆೆೆಯಯಯಯ====>>>> (cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)ವವವವ++++,,,,ರರರರುುುುವವವವ ಅಅಅಅಂಂಂಂಶಶಶಶಗಗಗಗಳಳಳಳ EEEE7777ೆೆೆೆ (cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)ೆೆೆೆಯಯಯಯ====>>>> &&&&ಾಾಾಾಮಮಮಮನನನನಗಗಗಗರರರರ (cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)QQQQೆೆೆೇೕೕೕಷಷಷಷ (cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:28)ಾಾಾಾಗಗಗಗ -275 -33 - FFFFಾಾಾಾ%%%%(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)*ಯ*ಯ*ಯ*ಯ====ನನ>>ನನ>> ಚಚಚಚನನನನ ಪಪಪಪಟಟಟಟ""""ಣಣಣಣ [[[[ಾಾಾಾಲಲಲಲೂೂೂೂಕಕ>>ಕಕ>>ುುುು &&&&ಾಾಾಾ(cid:136)(cid:136)(cid:136)(cid:136)(cid:150)(cid:150)(cid:150)(cid:150)ೕೕೕೕಯಯಯಯ (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)ೆೆೆೆNNNNಾಾಾಾ++55++55 ++++ಂಂಂಂದದದದ &&&&ಾಾಾಾಜಜಜಜ%%%% (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)ೆೆೆೆNNNNಾಾಾಾ5+5+5+5+ (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆಂಂಂಂಗಗಗಗDDDD - - - 8.00 . 20.00 . ದದದದಶಶಶಶFFFFಾಾಾಾರರರರ$$$$ಾಾಾಾಕಕಕಕ9999ಉಉಉಉಜಜಜಜನನ(cid:151)(cid:151)ನನ(cid:151)(cid:151) ಹಹಹಹ9999ppppಕಕಕಕಂಂಂಂ(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)ಾಾಾಾಪಪಪಪbbbbರರರರರರರರVVVVೆೆೆೆ**** (cid:127)(cid:127)(cid:127)(cid:127)(cid:142)(cid:142)(cid:142)(cid:142)ೕೕೕೕ2222ಂಂಂಂದದದದ (cid:127)(cid:127)(cid:127)(cid:127)(cid:142)(cid:142)(cid:142)(cid:142)ೕೕೕೕವವವವ&&&&ೆೆೆೆ////ೆೆೆೆರರರರVVVVೆೆೆೆ****ಅಅಅಅ(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)ವವವವೃೃೃೃ6666tttt (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾಮಮಮಮ////ಾಾಾಾ++++ಯಯಯಯ ||||ೆೆೆೆಂಂಂಂಡಡಡಡ].].].].ನನನನ ಯಯಯಯಶಶಶಶ,,,,YYYYೕೕೕೕ ಗಗಗಗುುುು<<<,>,>,>,ರರರರುುುುವವವವವವವವಂಂಂಂಚಚಚಚ7777ೆೆೆೆ ಪಪಪಪ;;;;ಕಕಕಕರರರರಣಣಣಣ(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆaaaa ಸಸಸಸಂಂಂಂಬಬಬಬಂಂಂಂ)))),,,,ದದದದಂಂಂಂ[[[[ೆೆೆೆ, (cid:141)(cid:141)(cid:141)(cid:141);;;;ೕೕೕೕ (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆ. rrrr. ರರರರ(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27), (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆrrrrಆಆಆಆ].].].]. ಕಕಕಕ£Àì÷çÖ\\\\(cid:129)(cid:129)(cid:129)(cid:129)(cid:135)(cid:135)(cid:135)(cid:135) ರರರರವವವವ&&&&ೆೆೆೇೕೕೕ ಜಜಜಜFFFFಾಾಾಾ::::ಾಾಾಾರರ55ರರ55&&&&ಾಾಾಾ(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)ರರರರುುುುವವವವbbbbದದದದ++++ಂಂಂಂದದದದ KTPP (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)ಾಾಾಾಗಗಗಗೂೂೂೂ ಇಇಇಇವವವವರರರರ ‘‘‘‘ೕೕೕೕ====ನನನನ ಆಆಆಆ&&&&ೆೆೆೊೂೂೂೕೕೕೕಪಪಪಪವವವವbbbb ರರರರುುುುಜಜಜಜುುುುFFFFಾಾಾಾ[[[[ಾಾಾಾ(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)ರರರರುುುುವವವವbbbbದದದದ++++ಂಂಂಂದದದದ ಸಸಸಸದದದದ++++ ಗಗಗಗುುುು<<<<*/*/*/*/ೆೆೆೆNNNNಾಾಾಾರರರರರರರರನನನನುುುು 14A (2) 03 (cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾ(cid:128)(cid:128)(cid:128)(cid:128)5ಯ5ಯ5ಯ5ಯ ರರರರ3333ಯಯಯಯ====>>>> ವವವವಷಷಷಷ(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)ಗಗಗಗಳಳಳಳ ಅಅಅಅವವವವ))))////ೆೆೆೆ &&&&ಾಾಾಾಜಜಜಜ%%%%NNNNೆೆೆೊೂೂೂಳಳಳಳ(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)ನನನನ JJJJಾಾಾಾವವವವbbbbNNNNೆೆೆೇೕೕೕ ಸಸಸಸಂಂಂಂಗಗಗಗ;;;;ಹಹಹಹHHHHಾಾಾಾ (Debar) . ಚಚಚಚಟಟಟಟುುುುವವವವrrrr(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆಯಯಯಯ====>>>> (cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:28)ಾಾಾಾಗಗಗಗವವವವEEEEಸಸಸಸದದದದಂಂಂಂ[[[[ೆೆೆೆ 3333::::ಾಾಾಾ].].].]. $$$$ಾಾಾಾ3333 ಆಆಆಆNNNNೆೆೆೇೕೕೕ(cid:141)(cid:141)(cid:141)(cid:141)ಸಸಸಸ(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17)ಾಾಾಾ(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23)NNNNೆೆೆೆ ಸಸಸಸಂಂಂಂಬಬಬಬಂಂಂಂಧಧಧಧಪಪಪಪಟಟಟಟ""""
200. 26( ) 26 ( ) (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)ಾಾಾಾ;;;;))))(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ಾಾಾಾರರರರಗಗಗಗಳಳಳಳLLLL(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)ೆೆೆೆrrrr(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)(cid:134)2222ಯಯಯಯಮಮಮಮಗಗಗಗಳಳಳಳLLLL ರರರರ2222ಯಯಯಯಮಮಮಮ CCCC (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)ಾಾಾಾಗಗಗಗೂೂೂೂ ,,,,ರರರರನನನನ ಯಯಯಯಮಮಮಮುುುುಂಂಂಂ6666ನನನನಕಕಕಕ;;;;ಮಮಮಮ . ವವವವEEEEಸಸಸಸತತತತಕಕಕಕaaaaದದದದುುುು5555 ಕ7ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ&ಾಜ%(cid:9)ಾಲರಆNೇQಾನುVಾರ ಮತು*ಅವರ(cid:3)ೆಸರನ=> ¸À»/- 11.01.2024 ( . &ಾಜQೇಖರಎಂf) , ಸ(cid:7)ಾ(cid:8)ರದಅ)ೕನ(cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)ದ(cid:141)(cid:8) ( ). (cid:17)ೋ(cid:7)ೋಪ(cid:22)ೕ(cid:23)ಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆಕಟ"ಡಗಳL
(Emphasis added)16 The impugned order debars the petitioner for a period of three years under Section 14A(2) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and further action is directed to be taken under Rule 26B and 26C of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short).
9. It is an admitted fact that a fake bank guarantee was initially furnished by the Firm, drawn from Union Bank of India. The circumstances are narrated in the memorandum of writ petition as to how the fake bank guarantee had emerged. The communications between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner are all quoted hereinabove. The only notice issued to the petitioner was seeking explanation with regard to the complaint from the Contractor Welfare and Recreation Club as at no point of time, the petitioner was issued any notice seeking to show as to why it should not be debarred from participating in any contract of Government invoking power under Section 14A(2) of the Act. It now becomes germane to notice the provision under which the powers have been exercised. Section 14A, which comes to be inserted in the year 17 2018 by way of amendment, deals with debarment of tenders. It reads as follows: “14A. Debarment of Tenderers.- (1) The Procurement Entity may debar tenderers, for a period not exceeding three years, from participation in its tenders, following such procedure as may be prescribed on the ground that tenderer is engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing or executing the contract including misleading the procuring entity at any stage of Procurement Activity with a fraudulent intention: Provided that, no tenderer shall be debarred without giving opportunity of being heard. (2) The State Government may debar tenderers for a period not exceeding three years, from participating in any procurement activity within the State, following such procedure as may be prescribed, on grounds of, but not restricted to, criminal offence, corruption, integrity, honesty and work ethics: Provided that no tenderer shall be debarred without giving opportunity of being heard. (3) The State Government shall publish the list of so debarred tenderers under sub-section (2) from participating in any procurement activity on the Karnataka Public Procurement portal. (4) The tenderer so debarred under sub section (2) shall not be entitled to apply to participate in tenders called by any procurement entity under this Act during the period so debarred.” (Emphasis supplied) 18 Section 14A(2) directs that the State Government may debar tenderers for a period not exceeding three years from participating in any procurement activity in the State. The proviso mandates that no tenderer shall be debarred without giving opportunity of being heard. The Act itself thus mandates that opportunity of being heard is to be granted to any person before action is taken under Section 14A. What is the opportunity that is rendered is a mystery, in the case at hand, as there is no clarity on what the State intended to do. A meeting notice is issued on 01-01-2024. The petitioner is also invited to the meeting. The meeting notice reads as follows: ““““ಸಸಸಸ(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:28)ಾಾಾಾಸಸಸಸೂೂೂೂಚಚಚಚ7777ಾಾಾಾಪಪಪಪತತತತ;;;; -275 -33 - ಚನ ಪಟ"ಣ[ಾಲೂ>ಕು&ಾ(cid:136)(cid:150)ೕಯ(cid:3)ೆNಾ5+ +ಂದ&ಾಜ%ಹNಾo+ (cid:7)ೆಂಗDದಶFಾರ – - 8.00 . . 20.00 . . $ಾಕ9 ಉಜ(cid:151)ನಹ9p ಕಂ(cid:9)ಾ>ಪbರರVೆ* (cid:127)(cid:142)ೕ 2ಂದ (cid:127)(cid:142)ೕ ವ&ೆ/ೆರVೆ*ಅ(cid:12)ವೃ6t (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+ಯ (cid:7)ಾJಾ(cid:8)Nೇಶ ಪlೆಯುವ ಸಲುFಾ(cid:23) (cid:141);ೕ (cid:7)ೆ. r. ರ(cid:27), (cid:7)ೆ. r. ಆ].. ಕ£Àì÷Öç\(cid:129)(cid:135) ರವರು ನಕ= :ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಸ=>,ರುವಬ/ೆ0(cid:27)(cid:146)ಾರHೆನlೆ,3:ಾ].$ಾಡುವಸಂಬಂಧಸ(cid:7)ಾ(cid:8)ರದಪ;Rಾನ , (cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)ದ(cid:141)(cid:8) (cid:17)ೋ(cid:7)ೋಪ(cid:22)ೕ(cid:23)ಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆಇವರಅಧ%\[ೆಯ=>ರುವ&ಾಜ%ಮಟ"ದ3:ಾ].‘ಂZ :03.01.2024 3.30 , :317, 3 ಸ(cid:142)<ಸ(cid:28)ೆಯನು 67ಾಂಕ ರಂದುಅಪ&ಾಹ ಗಂ|ೆ/ೆ (cid:7)ೊಠ3ಸಂ(cid:25)ೆ% 7ೇ , , . ಮಹ3(cid:27)(cid:7)ಾಸVೌಧ:ೆಂಗಳ^ರುಇ=>2ಗ)ಪ3ಸ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)ರುತ*Nೆ , ( ). ಈಸಂಬಂಧ,YೕಕೃತFಾ(cid:23)ರುವಮುಖ%ಇಂO2ಯ]. ಸಂಪಕ(cid:8)ಮತು*ಕಟ"ಡಗಳL ದ(cid:153)ಣ :
27. 11.2023 :ೆಂಗಳ^ರುಇವರಪತ;67ಾಂಕ ರಪ;<ಯನು ಈಸ(cid:28)ಾಸೂಚ7ಾಪತ;Nೊಂ6/ೆ . ಲಗ<*,ದು5ಸ(cid:142)<ಸ(cid:28)ೆ/ೆತಪ(cid:147)Nೆ(cid:3)ಾಜ&ಾಗುವಂ[ೆತಮoನು (cid:7)ೋರ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:23)Nೆ ¸À»/- 19 01.01.2024 («dAiÀÄPÀĪÀiÁj PÉ.¹) , ಸ(cid:7)ಾ(cid:8)ರದಉಪ(cid:7)ಾಯ(cid:8)ದ(cid:141)(cid:8) ( & ).” (cid:17)ೋ(cid:7)ೋಪ(cid:22)ೕ(cid:23)ಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆಸಂ ಕ The meeting notice indicated that the meeting is being held to consider fake bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner/Firm and to debar the Firm in the event it is resolved to do so. The petitioner participates in the said meeting and projects its defence. The defence is that the Firm had several documents to submit. What is observed is that the petitioner has admitted the guilt that it was the Bank guarantee furnished by one of its employees. In the light of the admission of guilt action is taken under Section 14A(2) of the Act. The observation reads as follows: “….. …. …. . (cid:141);ೕ(cid:7)ೆrರ(cid:27)ಇವರು$ಾತ7ಾ3ಸದ+(cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+/ೆ(cid:7)ಾJಾ(cid:8)Nೇಶಪlೆಯುವಸಮಯದ=> , ಸ=>ಸ:ೇ(cid:127)ದ5:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಯನು ಅವರವ%ವVಾMಪಕರುಅವರಗಮನ(cid:7)ೆaತರNೆ(cid:27)(cid:28)ಾಗ(cid:7)ೆaಸ=>,ದು5 , ಇದುಅವರ(cid:3)ೆಸರನು (cid:3)ಾಗೂ/ೌರವವನು (cid:3)ಾಳL$ಾಡುವಉNೆ5ೕಶ6ಂದ$ಾ3ರುವಕೃತ%Fಾ(cid:23)ರುತ*Nೆ , ಈ(cid:27)ಷಯಅವರಗಮನ(cid:7)ೆaಬಂದಕೂಡ(cid:17)ೇಮ[ೊ*ಂದು:ಾ%ಂe/ಾ%ರಂrಯನು ಸ=>,ದು5 ವಂಚ7ೆ . $ಾಡುವಉNೆ5ೕಶಇರುವb6ಲ>Fೆಂದು<9ಸು[ಾ*ತಮoನು \(cid:142)ಸುವಂ[ೆ(cid:7)ೋ+ದರು . , . , (cid:141);ೕ (cid:7)ೆr ರ(cid:27) ಇವರ ಸಮ(cid:137)ಾU(cid:136)ಯನು ಪ&ಾಮ(cid:141)(cid:8)ಸ(cid:17)ಾUತು ಕ7ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ :ಾ%ಂe , ,ದt=ಂಗಪbರ Qಾ(cid:25)ೆ ‘ೖಸೂರು ಇವರು ಸದ+ ಗು<*/ೆNಾರ+/ೆ :ಾ%ಂe /ಾ%ರಂrಗಳನು (cid:27)ತ+,ರುವb6ಲ>Fೆಂದು <9,ರುವ ಅಂಶವನು (cid:3)ಾಗೂ ಸYತಃ ಗು<*/ೆNಾರ&ೆ ಇದನು ಒ(cid:134)(cid:147)(cid:7)ೊಂ3ರುವbದ+ಂದ ಗು<*/ೆNಾರರ ‘ೕ=ನ ಆ&ೋಪವb ರುಜುFಾ[ಾ(cid:23)ರುವbNಾ(cid:23) 2ಣ(cid:8)Uಸ(cid:17)ಾUತು. |ೆಂಡ].ನು (cid:141);ೕ (cid:7)ೆ. r. ರ(cid:27), (cid:7)ೆrಆ]. ಕ£Àì÷Öç\(cid:129)(cid:135) ರವರು ಪlೆ6ದು5, |ೆಂಡ]. (cid:3)ಾಗೂ 20 . . , (cid:7)ಾಮ/ಾ+/ೆಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ"ಎ(cid:17)ಾ>ಪ;(cid:127);(cid:128)/ೆ(cid:141);ೕ(cid:7)ೆrರ(cid:27)ರವ&ೇಜFಾ:ಾ5ರ&ಾಗ=ದು5ಅವರ,ಬ(cid:143)ಂ6 ವಗ(cid:8)ದವರು$ಾಡುವಕ;ಮಗಳLಇ(cid:17)ಾ(cid:25)ೆ/ೆಸಂಬಂಧಪಡುವb6ಲ>Fಾದ5+ಂದಈವಂಚ7ೆಪ;ಕರಣ(cid:7)ೆa(cid:141);ೕ (cid:7)ೆ. r. ರ(cid:27), (cid:7)ೆrಆ]. ಕ£Àì÷Öç\(cid:129)(cid:135) ರವ&ೇ ಜFಾ:ಾ5ರ&ಾ(cid:23)ರುವbದ+ಂದ (cid:3)ಾಗೂ ಇವರ ‘ೕ=ನ ಆ&ೋಪವb KTPP14 (2) 03 ರುಜುFಾ[ಾ(cid:23)ರುವbದ+ಂದಸದ+ಗು<*/ೆNಾರರನು (cid:7)ಾ(cid:128)5ಯ ರ3ಯ=> ವಷ(cid:8)ಗಳ (Debar) ಅವ)/ೆ&ಾ(cid:137)ಾ%ದ%ಂತ3:ಾ]. $ಾಡಲುಸ(cid:142)
10. As observed hereinabove, Section 14A(2) clearly holds that opportunity of being heard should be granted prior to the order of debarment. The petitioner participates in the proceedings for its debarment which would not mean that no notice seeking such debarment should be issued prior to passing the said order of debarment. Debarment of a contractor has serious civil and economic consequences apart from the Firm being termed black everywhere. The debarment is notified on the website of the Government. The petitioner is debarred from participating in any Government tender. The bills for the tender that the Firm has completed, will also be withheld. Therefore, it has serious civil and 21 economic consequences. Such being the consequence, a notice in the least, as mandated in proviso to Section 14A(2), ought to have been issued to the petitioner. It is admittedly not issued. Show cause notice earlier issued was seeking a clarification. Thus, in the considered view of the Court, the earlier show cause notice would not be enough compliance with the principles of natural justice, more so, in the light of the fact that fresh bank guarantees are sought by the respondents and time to complete the contract on accepting the fresh bank guarantees is granted in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have blown hot and cold.
11. It becomes germane to notice the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court rendered on the issue. The Apex Court in the case of GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES v. GOVERNMENT (NCT OF DELHI)1 has held as follows: “Contents of the show-cause notice 21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. 1 (2014) 9 SCC10522 This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. … … … 27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was incumbent on the part of the Department to state in the show-cause notice that the competent authority intended to impose such a penalty of blacklisting, so as to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the same. However, we may also add that even if it is not mentioned specifically but from the reading of the show-cause notice, it can be clearly inferred that such an action was proposed, that would fulfil this requirement. In the present case, however, reading of the show-cause notice does not suggest that noticee could find out that such an action could also be taken. We say so for the reasons that are recorded hereinafter.
28. In the instant case, no doubt the show-cause notice dated 6-2-2013 was served upon the appellant. Relevant portion thereof has already been extracted above (see para 5). This show-cause notice is conspicuously silent about the blacklisting action. On the contrary, after stating in detail the nature of alleged defaults and breaches of the agreement committed by the appellant the notice specifically mentions that because of the said defaults the appellant was “as such liable to be levied the cost accordingly”. It further says “why the action as mentioned above may not be taken against the firm, besides other action as deemed fit by the competent authority”. It follows from the above that main action which the respondents wanted to take was to levy the cost. No doubt, the notice further mentions that the 23 competent authority could take other actions as deemed fit. However, that may not fulfil the requirement of putting the defaulter to the notice that action of blacklisting was also in the mind of the competent authority. Mere existence of Clause 27 in the agreement entered into between the parties, would not suffice the aforesaid mandatory requirement by vaguely mentioning other “actions as deemed fit”. As already pointed out above insofar as penalty of blacklisting and forfeiture of earnest money/security deposit is concerned it can be imposed only, “if so warranted”. Therefore, without any specific stipulation in this behalf, the respondent could not have imposed the penalty of blacklisting.” (Emphasis supplied) Later, the Apex Court in the case of KULJA INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN TELECOM PROJECT BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED2 has held as follows: “…. …. … 17. That apart, the power to blacklist a contractor whether the contract be for supply of material or equipment or for the execution of any other work whatsoever is in our opinion inherent in the party allotting the contract. There is no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or reserved by contractor. That is because “blacklisting” simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach. Between two private parties the right to take any such decision is absolute and untrammelled by any constraints whatsoever. The freedom to contract or not to contract is 2 (2014) 14 SCC73124 unqualified in the case of private parties. But any such decision is subject to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any of its instrumentalities. This implies that any such decision will be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. The order itself being reasonable, fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence is similarly examinable by a writ court. … … … 22. The guidelines also stipulate the factors that may influence the debarring official's decision which include the following: (a) The actual or potential harm or impact that results or may result from the wrongdoing. (b) The frequency of incidents and/or duration of the wrongdoing. (c) Whether there is a pattern or prior history of wrongdoing. (d) Whether the contractor has been excluded or disqualified by an agency of the Federal Government or has not been allowed to participate in State or local contracts or assistance agreements on the basis of conduct similar to one or more of the causes for debarment specified in this part. (e) Whether and to what extent did the contractor plan, initiate or carry out the wrongdoing. (f) Whether the contractor has accepted responsibility for the wrongdoing and recognized the seriousness of the misconduct. (g) Whether the contractor has paid or agreed to pay all criminal, civil and administrative liabilities for the improper activity, including any investigative or 25 administrative costs incurred by the Government, and has made or agreed to make full restitution. (h) Whether the contractor has cooperated fully with the government agencies during the investigation and any court or administrative action. (i) Whether the wrongdoing was pervasive within the contractor's organization. (j) The kind of positions held by the individuals involved in the wrongdoing. (k) Whether the contractor has taken appropriate corrective action or remedial measures, such as establishing ethics training and implementing programs to prevent recurrence. (l) Whether the contractor fully investigated the circumstances surrounding the cause for debarment and, if so, made the result of the investigation available to the debarring official.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the case of DAFFODILLS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH3 has held as follows: “…. …. ….
15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State resorted to against Daffodills, which was never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this : that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of 3 (2020) 18 SCC55026 hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of this country to be ignored, as the State did, in this case.” (Emphasis supplied) Long before the afore-quoted judgments, the Apex Court in the case of ERUSIAN EQUIPMENT AND CHEMICALS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL4 has held as follows: “…. …. ….
20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-stated are the judgments of the Apex Court. This Court in a judgment rendered in M/s SRIMAULI BUILDERS v. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD5 has held as follows: “…. …. ….
26. Much ice has melted in the Himalayas since the date of acceptance of tender in the year 2003 by the Board and to 4 (1975) 1 SCC705 (2005) 6 Kant.L.J.216(DB) 27 say in the year 2005 that too after much of the work has been completed by the appellant-firm, that the tender is invalid, is like waking up when the horse has bolted out of the stable. If the tender itself was not valid, nothing prevented the Board from stopping the allotment of work to the appellant, at the initial stage itself. But, having allowed the appellant-firm to continue to do the work till the end of 2004 and that too after accepting the subsequent Bank guarantees furnished by it as proper, the Board cannot now turn around and contend before the Court that the Bank guarantee furnished is invalid and therefore, the termination of contracts is justified. As already pointed out by us supra, that is not the reason for the Board to terminate the contracts. The Board cannot approbate and reprobate.
27. It is not expected of the Board, which is an instrumentality of the State, to take such inconsistent and diametrically opposite stand in the matter of termination of the contracts, value of which runs into crores of rupees. The Board itself is not sure as to what prompted it to rescind the contract. If it is due to abandonment of work, there is no material to support the said decision, but on the other hand, there is overwhelming material placed by the appellant-firm to show that it has completed substantial portions of the work and it is eager to complete rest of the work also. If the impugned decision is taken on account of furnishing of fake Bank guarantees, then, it cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, because, the Board itself has agreed subsequently that the appellant has furnished the proper Bank guarantees. Moreover, nowhere in the final notice dated 12-7-2004 or in the proceedings of the Board Meeting held on 18-1-2005 or in the letter of termination of contract dated 27-1-2005, is there any reference to the Bank guarantee that is furnished being not a proper one.” (Emphasis supplied) 28 In a later judgment, this Court in GANESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA6has held as follows: “…. …. ….
6. … … Moreover, the reason stated in the impugned order that the petitioner had furnished fake bank guarantee in the year 2013 and therefore that forms the basis for blacklisting the petitioner, seems to be very remote. The respondents have admitted that they have settled the bills tendered by the petitioner for the works undertaken during the year 2013. consequent to the completion of the work and setting of the accounts, the petitioner was permitted to take back the bank guarantee. There was no reason furnished or even stated by the third respondent-Executive Engineer before permitting the petitioner to take back the bank guarantee pointing out that the bank guarantee furnished was fake. It is also difficult to understand how the third respondent has come to a conclusion that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was fake having permitted the petitioner to take back the bank guarantee after completion of the works and having settled the bills in favour of the petitioner. This itself shows that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner was passed.
7. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court has held that it is common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences flow. It is described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. It was therefore held that such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a 6 2020 SCC OnLine Kar.3064 29 person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts. Therefore, the high handed action of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner has prevented the petitioner from participating in any Government tenders since May 2019.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and that of this Court quoted supra, what becomes unmistakably clear, as a noon day is that no order of debarment or blacklisting can be made against any person, without at the outset issuing a notice to show cause as to why such an action should not be taken against him. The notice, in the case at hand, with specific reasoning seeking to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be debarred is admittedly not issued to the petitioner. Its participation in a meeting considering such debarment would not suffice. A notice ought to have been issued in compliance with Section 14A(2) of the Act, which action will have to be taken now by the State. There cannot be implied compliance of the tenets of principles of natural justice, it should be substantive compliance. 30
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order dated 11-01-2024 issued by the Government stands quashed. (iii) The respondents, if they so desire, shall issue a notice to the petitioner seeking to show cause as to why action should not be taken, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. (iv) In the event, the petitioner furnishes its reply to the show cause notice if issued, action shall be taken in accordance with law, on consideration of the said reply. (v) All other contentions except the one considered in the course of the order shall remain open. 31 Consequently, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 also stand disposed. Sd/- JUDGE bkp CT:SS