(Prayer: 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.)

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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Judgment of the Honourable 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 Honourable 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  Honourable  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 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 Honourable 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 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 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 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.

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 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, places reliance on the Judgment of the Honourable 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 Honourable 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 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 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 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 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:

                  "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. 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 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 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 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 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 Honourable 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 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 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 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 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 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 Honourable 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 Honourable 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. The Honourable 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 Honourable 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 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.

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.