- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12785 WP No. 4906 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. UDBHAV EDUCATIONAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (R) REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960, NO.3B, GROUND FLOOR, 60 FT. BALARAMA LAYOUT, KRISHNA GARDEN, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT 2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA BAI. L D/O A R LAKSHMANA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRESIDENT UDBHAV EDUCATIONAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (R) R/A NO.75, GEETHA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, NEAR HAPPY HOME Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12785 WP No. 4906 of 2023 KRISHNA GARDEN, R R NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT.SWAMINI G. MOHANAMBAL, ADV.) AND: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVANA, ITI COLLEGE CAMPUS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B R., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TERMINATION ORDER BEARING NO. KAKAAMUM/SUMAAKLI/CR-215/2021-22/17733 DATED 23.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12785 WP No. 4906 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: "i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari & quash the Termination Order bearing No. KaKaaMum/SumAakli/CR-215/2021-22/1773 dated 23.01.2023 issued by the Respondent (vide ANNEXURE - "A") AND/OR ii. Issue such other Writ, Order or Direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity" 2. Heard the learned counsel Smt.Swamini G. Mohanambal, appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri.Prashanth B.R., appearing for the respondent. 3. The order that is called in question is termination of a contract of the petitioners. According to the respondent, the termination of the contract occasioned on account of default on the part of the petitioners to execute the contract in its entirety - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12785 WP No. 4906 of 2023 or to the satisfaction of the respondent. Therefore, certain amounts that was to be paid to the petitioner was also withheld. The claim of the petitioners was for complete payment of Rs.3,74,00,000/-. The respondent's counsel had undertaken that they would consider the matter and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, in terms of which, the respondent has now paid the petitioners Rs.3,56,00,000/-, which according to them is the amount that is found in the contract. Therefore, the said claim is now redressed. 4. The learned counsel Smt. Swamini G. Mohanambal, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order is a composite order of termination, forfeiture of bank guarantee and the amount not being paid and blacklisting. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order was to be in operation for a period of two years and those two years have already passed by and the order spent itself. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12785 WP No. 4906 of 2023 6. In the light of the order spending itself, I deem it appropriate to observe that the termination, blacklisting or any form that has civil or economic consequences against the petitioners, in terms the said order is deemed to have lost its efficacy. Therefore, those two circumstances cannot be projected against the petitioners in any of the future tenders. 7. Insofar as the forfeiture of the bank guarantee is concerned, what was indicated in the order was the bank guarantee would be forfeited on account of the work that was short done by the petitioners. Now that the claim is completely cleared by the respondent. The forfeiture of bank guarantee also cannot be a circumstance that could emerge from the impugned order. Therefore, the bank guarantee, if not forfeited, shall not be forfeited and the petitioners are entitled to receive the same and if it is forfeited, as on today, shall be returned to the petitioners, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the bank guarantee, if it is to be returned, it shall be, in accordance with law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12785 WP No. 4906 of 2023 8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2