Sri Chandrashekar S E Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Chandrashekar S E Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Resolution No.6 dated 19.02.2025 passed by respondent No.3 stands quashed; respondents at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioners, seek their reply, consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, if they so desire.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were heard in the matter prior to passage of the order of disqualification.

Court's answer

The disqualification that emerged is in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were never made aware that they would be disqualified if the reply was not found satisfactory.

Ratio / Principle

The disqualification proceedings, and an order passed thereon, become contrary to law and are rendered unsustainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Three connected writ petitions (WP Nos. 6569, 6558 and 6564 of 2025, GM-TEN) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by successful bidders of a tender notified on 02.07.2024 by respondents No.3 and 4 (President and Panchayath Development Officer, K Nidugane Gram Panchayath) for collection of fee at Abbi Falls for 01.08.2024 to 31.03.2025. Agreements went unsigned over non-payment of GST; a notice dated 28.10.2024 sought the petitioners' reply on GST liability without indicating that an unsatisfactory reply could lead to disqualification. Resolution No.6 dated 19.02.2025 of respondent No.3 disqualified the petitioners and barred them from future tenders. Held: the disqualification violated principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were never made aware that they would be disqualified if the reply was not found satisfactory; the disqualification proceedings and the order passed thereon are contrary to law and unsustainable. Writ petitions allowed-in-part; Resolution No.6 quashed; respondents at liberty to issue fresh notice, consider the reply and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Coram: Hon'ble Mr Justice M.Nagaprasanna; decided 21.03.2025.

NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO. 6569 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 6558 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) WRIT PETITION NO. 6564 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

IN WP No. 6569/2025

BETWEEN:

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S.E, S/O ERAPPA SK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT K NIDUGANE VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI - 571 201, KODAGU DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KODAGU ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MADIKERI - 571 201.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

THE PRESIDENT

K NIDUGANE GRAM PANCHAYATH, KALAKERI NIDUGANE GRAMA, MADIKERI - 571 201.

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, K NIDUGANE GRAM PANCHAYATH, KALAKERI NIDUGANE GRAMA, MADIKERI - 571 201

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.S. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION NO.6 PASSED BY R-3 ON 19.02.2025 VIDE ANNXE TO THE WRIT PETITION. IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

IN WP NO. 6558/2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. KUSHALAPPA B.N, S/O LATE B.P. NANAIAH, D ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT K NIDUGANE VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI - 571 201, KODAGU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KODAGU ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MADIKERI - 571 201.

THE PRESIDENT

K NIDUGANE GRAM PANCHAYATH, KALAKERI NIDUGANE GRAMA, MADIKERI - 571 201.

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, K NIDUGANE GRAM PANCHAYATH, KALAKERI NIDUGANE GRAMA, MADIKERI - 571 201

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.S. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION NO.6 PASSED BY R-3 ON 19.02.2025 VIDE ANNX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

IN WP NO. 6564/2025

BETWEEN:

YESHWANTH N.K, S/O N.R. KALIMUTTU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/22 C, NEAR FMC COLLEGE, MADIKERI - 571 201.

SRI. K.R. PAVAN S/O RUDRAPPA K M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT MAKKANDUR VILLAGE AND POST MADIKERI TALUK - 571 201

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KODAGU ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MADIKERI - 571 201.

THE PRESIDENT K NIDUGANE GRAM PANCHAYATH, KALAKERI NIDUGANE GRAMA, MADIKERI - 571 201.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, K NIDUGANE GRAM PANCHAYATH, KALAKERI NIDUGANE GRAMA, MADIKERI - 571 201.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.S. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION NO.6 PASSED BY R-3 ON 19.02.2025 VIDE ANNX-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners in all these cases are successful bidders in a tender notified by respondent No.4.

Heard Shri. Srinivas V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri S. Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

On 02.07.2024, respondents No.3 and 4 call for tender for collection of fee at Abbi falls for a period between 01.08.2024 to 31.03.2025. The petitioner claims that he had become the successful bidder and has applied for a trade licence for running the business. The agreement also was drafted and was not signed for the reason that GST is not paid and the issue is related to payment of GST. On 19.02.2025, comes the impugned order disqualifying the petitioners from participating in future tenders. It is this order of disqualification or proceedings of disqualification that is driven the petitioners to this Court, in the subject petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that though two notices were issued seeking reply from the hands of these petitioners, it was not indicated that the petitioners would be disqualified, if the reply was not satisfactory. He would further submit that the disqualification is a serious measure, which will take away his right to participate in future tenders and without issuance of a notice, the said disqualification could not have come about.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 takes this Court through the statement of objections to contend that notice was in fact given and what the petitioners

have done is a grave illegality of forging the seal of the Panchayath and therefore, no indulgence should be shown is the submission of the learned counsel.

Learned High Court Government Pleader would also

toe the lines of learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 in seeking dismissal of the petition.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioners are all participants in a tender notified on 02.07.2024 by respondents No.3 and 4. The dispute arose with regard to payment of GST while signing the agreement, pursuant to the petitioners emerging as the successful bidders. The GST is not paid. Respondents No.3 and 4 later issue a notice on 28.10.2024, seeking reply from the hands of the

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

petitioners for the purpose of payment of GST, inter alia . The notice reads as follows:

"PÀæ.. ¸ÀA. PÉ. ¤. UÁæ.. ¥ÀA/164/2024-25 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28.10.2024

�ಷಯ : � ಎ� � �ಾವ� �ಾಡದ ಕು�ತು.

ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ: �ಾನ� �ಾ�ಜ� ೆ�!ೆ ಸ#ಾಯಕ ಆಯುಕ%ರು, ಸ'(ೕಯ ಸರಕು ಮತು% *ೇ�ಾ ೆ�!ೆ ಕ+ೇ� ಮ,-ೇ� ರವರ ಪತ/ ಸಂ1ೆ�: �ಾ. ೆ .¸É.ಅ.ಸ.&*ೇ ೆ .ಕ-300:ಮ.�.2024-25 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23/09/2024.

ಈ 4ೕ5ನ �ಷಯ ಮತು% ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ-ೆ6 ಸಂಬಂ89ದಂ ೆ -ೆ :ಡುಗ<ೆ !ಾ/ಮ ಪಂ+ಾ=� �ಾ�>%ಯ5� 2024-25�ೇ *ಾ5!ೆ ಅ?@�ಾAB, �ಾಹನ :ಲುಗEೆ ಶುಲ6 ವಸೂ5ಯನುG ಾವHಗಳJ 46,55,000-00ಗ(!ೆ ಪEೆ8ದುK ಪಂ+ಾ=� µÀgÀ�%ನ ಪ/-ಾರ 31/07/2024ರ ಒಳ!ೆ � ಎ� � ಕಟN ತಕ6ದುK #ಾಗೂ ಕOಾರು ಪತ/ :ೕಡPೇ-ಾQ �(9ದರೂ ಕೂEಾ ಾವH :ೕ,ರುವH8ಲ�.

�ಾತ/ವಲ�Rೆ ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖದಂ ೆ �ಾ�ಜ� ೆ�UÉ ಸ#ಾಯಕ ಆಯುಕ%ರು, ಸ'(ೕಯ ಸರಕು ಮತು% *ೇ�ಾ ೆ�!ೆ ಕ+ೇ� ಮ,-ೇ� ರವರು ಜಯSೕಲ ?ಡುRಾರರ � ಎ� � ಹಣವನುG Uೇ18% ೆ�!ೆಯನುG (9�ಎ� � 9% ಮತು% ಎ� � ಎ� � 9%) ಕ�ಾVಟಕ ಸ-ಾVರ *ೇ�ಾ ೆ�!ೆ -ಾ=Rೆ 2017 ಮತು% -ೇಂದ/ ಸ-ಾVರ *ೇ�ಾ ೆ�!ೆ -ಾ=Rೆ 2017ರ ಪ/ಕರಣ 9(3)ರ ಅನWಯ ಆX 9 ಎಂ �Yಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ �ಾವ�ಸPೇ-ಾQರುತ%Rೆ ಎಂದು �(9ರು ಾ%Oೆ . ಪ/� ಲಗ�%9Rೆ .

ಆದುದ�ಂದ ಈ ಪತ/ ತಲು>ದ 7 8ನಗZೆ[ಳ!ೆ ಸೂಕ% ಸಮ\ಾ=9-ೆ :ೕಡPೇ-ಾQ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂ]9Rೆ ."

Identical notices are issued to other petitioners, as well.

The petitioners have submitted their reply contending that they are not liable to pay any GST.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

9 Be that as it may. What comes about is the impugned resolution directing the disqualification of these petitioners and barring them from future tenders. This Court soa and so reads as follows:

"ಸಂ*ೆ'ಯ #ೆಸರು :- -ೆ :ಡುಗ<ೆ !ಾ/ಮ ಪಂ+ಾ=�

*ಾ�ಾನ� ಸ_ೆ 8�ಾಂಕದಂದು ನEೆದ -ಾಯV-ಾ� ಸ`�ಯ �ೕ�ಾVನಗಳJ,

10 ಸದಸ�ರು ಾ�ೕಕು 19.02.25 ರ5� S/ೕಮ� -ೆ, �ಾವV� ರವರ ಅಧ�b ೆಯ5� ಸ_ೆ *ೇ� ನEೆ9ದ `ೕ�ಂc d/ೕ9,ಂc

�ಷಯಗಳJ -

ಠOಾವH ಸಂ1ೆ� 6

-ೆ :ಡುಗ<ೆ !ಾ/ಮ ಪಂ+ಾ=�ಯ 2024 25 �ೇ *ಾ5ನ5� ಬfರಂಗ ಹOಾಜು ಪEೆದವರು ಷರತು%ಗಳ ಉಲ�ಂಘ�ೆ �ಾ,ರುವ ಬ!ೆh.

�ೕ�ಾV:9ದ �ಷಯಗಳJ -

-ೆ 9ಡುಗ� !ಾ/ಮ ಪಂ+ಾ=� 2024 25 �ೇ *ಾ5ನ5� ಅ?@ iಾAB ಅಂಗ, ಮ(!ೆ 1, 2 ರ jೆಂಡರನುG S/ೕ ಯಶವಂk ಎl. -ೆ ಮತು% 3 ಮತು% 4 jೆಂಡX ಅನುG S/ೕ ಪವl -ೆ ಆX #ಾಗೂ ಅ?@ iಾAB ಪ/�ೇಶ -RಾWರ ಶುಲ6 ವಸು�ಾ� jೆಂಡX ಪEೆದ S/ೕ ಚಂದ/UೇಖX ಎ� ಇ ಮತು% ಹ?@iಾAB �ಾಹನ :ಲುಗEೆ ಶುಲ6 ವಸು�ಾ� jೆಂಡX ಪEೆದ S/ೕ ಕುUಾಲಪo ? ಎಂ ರವರು ಪಂ+ಾಯ� jೆಂಡX ಶರ�%ನ ಪ/-ಾರ � 'ಎ� � ಅನುG ಕಟNRೆ ಸ-ಾVರ-ೆ6 ಅ�ಾರ ನಷNವನುG ಉಂಟು �ಾ,ರುವHದ�ಂದ ಮತು% ಕOಾರು ಪತ/ವನುG ಸf �ಾ, :ೕಡRೆ ಇರುವHದ�ಂದ �ಾನ� -ಾಯV:ವVಹ<ಾ ಅp-ಾ� ಅವರ ಪತ/ ಸಂ1ೆ�- ಾ.ಪಂ.ಮ/!ಾ/. ಪಂ/-ೆ 9ಡುಗ<ೆ ಇತOೆ /05/2024-25 ರಂ ೆ ಕ�ಾVಟಕ !ಾ/ಮ ಸWOಾq ಮತು% ಪಂ+ಾಯk Oಾq !ಾ/ಮ ಪಂ+ಾ=�ಯ ಮತು% �ೆಕ6ಪತ/ ಅrನಯಮ 2006ರ :ಯಮ 19 ಮತು% 20 ರಂvÉ !ಾ/ಮ ಪಂ+ಾ=� ಆಡ(ತ ಮಂಡ(ಯ ಾ�ಾನ� ಸ_ೆಯ5� ನಯ�ಾನುಾರ :ಣVಯ -ೈ!ೊಂಡು ಅಗತ� ಕ/ಮ -ೈ!ೊಳtಲು ಸೂ]ಸುವHದ�ಂದ ಸ_ೆಯ5� ಈ ಬ!ೆh ಚ]V9 ಸದಸ�ರು ಸ�ಾVನುಮತ8ಂದ S/ೕ ಯಶವಂk ಎ� -ೆ

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

ಮತು% ಪವl -ೆ ಆX ಮತು% S/ೕ ಕುUಾಲಪo ? ಎಂ #ಾಗೂ ಚಂದ/UೇಖX ಎ� ಇ ರವರುಗಳನುG ಮುಂ8ನ ಪಂ+ಾ=�ಯ jೆಂಡX ಗ(!ೆ _ಾಗವfಸಲು ಅನಹVOೆಂದು ಆಡ(ತ ಮಂಡ(ಯು �ೕ�ಾV:9 :ಣVಯ -ೈ!ೊಳt�ಾQRೆ."

The issue now would be whether the petitioners are heard in the matter, prior to passage of the order of disqualification. The notice that is issued is quoted hereinabove. It nowhere indicates that the petitioners would be disqualified from future tenders, if the reply would be unsatisfactory. The petitioners contended in the reply that they had submitted with regard to the merit of the matter contending that they are not liable to pay GST, but what has come about is the drastic measure of disqualifying these petitioners.

In the considered view of this Court, the disqualification that has emerged is in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were never made aware that they would be disqualified, if the reply was not found satisfactory. In that light, the disqualification proceedings or an order passed thereon, becomes contrary to law, as is rendered unsustainable.

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11946 WP No. 6569 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6558 of 2025 WP No. 6564 of 2025

ORDER

i) Writ petitions are allowed-in-part. ii) The impugned resolution No.6 passed by respondent No.3 on 19.02.2025 stands quashed.

iii) The respondents are at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioners, seek their reply and consider the same and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, if they so desire, at this juncture.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK