M/S Sri Raghavendra Civil Projects Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9246 WP No. 3138 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3138 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. SRI RAGHAVENDRA CIVIL PROJECTS NO. 361, NEAR REAL HOME APARTMENT ANJANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 062 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI K.UDAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE KEMPAIAH RESIDING AT NO.361 NEAR REAL HOME APARTMENT ANJANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 062.

¶9

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

NATURE: CIVIL PROJECTS VIDE ANNEXURE – B UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDINGS, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶15

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:9246 WP No. 3138 of 2023

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ANAND RAO CIRCLE

¶19

BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BENGALURU DIVISION

¶21

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEBARMENT NOTICE/ORDER DATED 25/08/2022 PASSED BY THE R-3 BEARING NO.PÁ¤EA:¨ÉA«:JE:1/2022-23/2514 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶29

prayer:

¶30

“a) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned debarment notice / order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 bearing No. PÁ¤EA:¨ÉA«:JE:1/2022-23/2514 as found at Annexure – A &;

¶31

b) To pass such other order / s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:9246 WP No. 3138 of 2023

¶34

Heard Sri Bhadrinath R., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶35

The petitioner claims to be a class I civil contractor and having a valid licence upto 07.06.2025. Owing to certain incident, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the third respondent seeking to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be debarred from participating in subsequent tenders of the State. The petitioner is said to have submitted a reply to the said show cause notice and without considering any of the submissions / reply, the impugned notice / order is passed against the petitioner by blacklisting / debarring from participation in the tenders of the State on 25.08.2022.

¶36

This Court in terms of its order dated 08.02.2023, protected the petitioner from such debarment by the following order:

¶37

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice for all the respondents.

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:9246 WP No. 3138 of 2023

¶41

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notice/order dated 25.08.2022, passed by respondent No.3, which seeks to debar the petitioner from participating in the tender for a period of one year.

¶42

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice seeking to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be debarred, on 12.08.2022. This notice was replied to by the petitioner, dated 24.08.2022, which reaches the respondents on 25.08.2022. On 25.08.2022, a debar notice is issued without even looking into the contents of the reply dated 24.08.2022.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not perform or execute the contract on account of the land being a forest land and it was not possible to be executed and therefore, it was the impossibility of execution that lead to issuance of a notice dated 12.08.2022.

¶44

Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that in terms of the Guidelines for suspension of business dealings with defaulting contractors / consultants, the petitioner can be debarred for violation of the terms of the contract. The cause for suspension in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Clause 3 of the said Guidelines is, after placement of order, if the contractor fails to execute a contract satisfactorily, it would lead to suspension.

¶45

The procedure for leading to issuance or passage of the notice / order of suspension is enumerated under Clause 4. Clause 4.3 of the guidelines reads as under:

¶46

“4.3 To enable the Contractor to understand and reply to the notice. The Show Cause Notice should clearly and precisely mention the facts of the matter stating that an action under these guidelines has been proposed, the omission or commission on part of the contractor, along with all the relevant / substantial documents, giving a notice period of 15 days to the contractor for reply from the date of issue of letter. A copy of the notice will also be sent to CPG. A performa of Show Cause Notice is attached at Annexure-4.63A.”

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:9246 WP No. 3138 of 2023

¶49

In the light of the afore-quoted guidelines, a minimum of 15 days time is required to be given to the contractor before the notice is issued.

¶50

Admittedly, the debar notice is issued on 25.08.2022. Even if the date of the notice is taken into consideration i.e., 12.08.2022, 15 days time is not given to the petitioner to submit his reply and the notice/order dated 25.08.2022 is issued.

¶51

Therefore, there shall be an interim order of stay as prayed for, till the next date of hearing.”

¶52

This Court while granting the interim order observed that the notice of debarment was issued on 12.08.2022, directing him

¶53

to reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner replies on 25.08.2022, and on the same day, the impugned order is passed. Therefore, there is blatant violation of the principles of natural justice as also the guidelines, which are all captured in the interim order quoted supra .

¶54

In the light of the fact that the order of such debarment is not passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law, the inescapable conclusion would be obliteration of the impugned notice / order dated 25.08.2022, reserving liberty to the respondents to issue notice in accordance with law, if they so desire.

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:9246 WP No. 3138 of 2023

¶57

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

a. The petition is allowed.

¶60

b. The notice / order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the third respondent stands quashed.

¶61

c. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action in accordance with law, if need arises, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶62

Ordered accordingly.

¶63

SD/-

¶64

____________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶65

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68 CT:SS

M/S Sri Raghavendra Civil Projects v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Raghavendra Civil Projects v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nagaraj Vs Authorised Officer Indian Bank

Mrs. D.R. Ambika Vs M/S Canara Bank

M/S Sri Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Jagadeesh Narayana Vs Sir. M Visvesvaraya Co. Op Bank Ltd.

Durgappa Vs Commissioner of Police

H v Veeregowda Vs State of Karnataka