Gutti Basaveshwar Man Power Agencies Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Gutti Basaveshwar Man Power Agencies Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: (i) petitioner may make a representation within ten days to respondent No.3 for revocation of the blacklisting order dated 13.01.2023; (ii) if such representation is made, respondent No.3 shall give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order as it deems fit; (iii) the interim order granted on 08.02.2023 shall continue to operate for one month; and (iv) the Competent Authority should decide the petitioner's application, if filed as directed, within a period of one month. The merits of the challenge to the blacklisting were left undecided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned blacklisting order dated 13.01.2023 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-U) is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner is provided an opportunity to make a representation within a period of ten days to respondent No.3 for revoking the order of blacklisting dated 13.01.2023.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner makes such representation, respondent No.3 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order as respondent No.3 may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Key takeaways

The interim order granted on 08.02.2023 shall continue to operate for a period of one month from the date of this order.ratio¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-TEN) - Blacklisting of contractor - Natural justice. A partnership firm engaged to supply eggs for midday meals to Anganawadi Centres under the CEO, Jilla Panchayath, Bengaluru Rural District (tender period 09.12.2022 to 08.12.2023) failed to make supply; after show cause notices dated 19.12.2022 and 26.12.2022 and the firm's delayed replies, respondent No.3 blacklisted it for future contracts by order dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure-U), which the petitioner challenged as arbitrary and passed without an opportunity of hearing. Without adjudicating the merits, the Court (Justice D K Singh) disposed of the petition by directing that the petitioner may file a representation within ten days for revocation of the blacklisting; upon such representation, respondent No.3 is to afford a hearing and pass an appropriate order; the interim order of 08.02.2023 was continued for one month; and the Competent Authority is to decide the application within one month. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. No precedent cited; no monetary relief.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47199 WP No. 2566 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH WRIT PETITION NO. 2566 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

GUTTI BASAVESHWAR MAN POWER AGENCIES PLOT NO.100, SAJJAN LAYOUT TALIKOTI, MUDDEBIHAL TALUKA VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT-586214

REGISTERED UNDER OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF FIRMS, BIJAPUR THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 REP BY ITS PARTNER SANGANAGOUD VADAVADAGI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O IRANNA VADAVADAGI

ALSO CORRESPONDING ADDRESS

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NO.1068, H M T LAYOUT NAGASANDRA BENGALURU-560079

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT GROUND FLOOR, GATE NO.3 M S BUILDING

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47199 WP No. 2566 of 2023

HC-KAR

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

THE DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT 2^ND FLOOR, M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BEERSANDRA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUKA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT NO.206, 2^ND FLOOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BEERSANDRA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUKA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110

CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT DEVANAHALLI TALUKA OLD TALUKA OFFICE BUILDING B B ROAD, DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110

CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT DODDABALLAPUR TALUKA APMC BUILDING

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47199 WP No. 2566 of 2023

HC-KAR

TUMKUR MAIN ROAD DODDABALLAPURA-561203

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.01.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-U AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-U blacklisting the petitioner for future contracts.

The petitioner is a partnership firm. The petitioner has participated in the tender process for supply of eggs for midday meal to the Anganawadi Centres under the jurisdiction of the respondent No.3 from 09.12.2022 to 08.12.2023. Since the petitioner failed to make supply, the respondent No.3 had to

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47199 WP No. 2566 of 2023

HC-KAR

make alternate arrangements for supplying the eggs for midday meal. The petitioner was issued with show cause notices dated 19.12.2022 and 26.12.2022. The petitioner had replied to both the notices, however, with some delay. After considering the response of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed blacklisting the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. The blacklisting entails serious consequences for the petitioner and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. He further submits that the respondent No.3 has also written a letter to the MSME for cancelling the registration of the petitioner.

Mr. M.N. Sudev Hegde, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to present its case, however, with much delay, the petitioner could file response to the notices issued to it and after considering the response and finding that there was no merit in the response, the Competent Authority has taken the decision to blacklist the petitioner for future contracts. He

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47199 WP No. 2566 of 2023

HC-KAR

further submits that if the petitioner makes a representation for revoking the blacklisting order, the Competent Authority shall consider the representation and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Competent Authority may revoke the order of blacklisting the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is hereby provided an opportunity to make a representation within a period of ten days from today to the respondent No.3 for revoking the order of blacklisting dated 13.01.2023. If the petitioner makes such representation, the respondent No.3 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order, as the respondent No.3 may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

The interim order granted on 08.02.2023 shall continue to operate for a period of one month from today. The

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47199 WP No. 2566 of 2023

HC-KAR

Competent Authority should decide the application of the

petitioner, if filed as directed, within a period of one month.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5