- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10724 WP No. 23852 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23852 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. GNANAGANAPATHY INFRATECH NO. 577, VYALIKAVAL HBCS LAYOUT VEERANNAPALYA MAIN ROAD ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU - 560 045 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI GNANASHEKAR K., S/O KAKARALA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SAMEER S. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO. 82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL) SHARAVATHI VALLEY PROJECT JOG FALLS, SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 435. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C) JOG SHARAVATHY GENERATING STATION (SGS) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10724 WP No. 23852 of 2024 ADMIN BLOCK, JOG FALLS - 577 435 SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHYLAJA S. V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE R2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL)(SHA) VIDE ORDER BEARING NO. CECS/EMD FORFEIT/952 DATED 4.1.24 AT ANNEXURE –A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order by the respondent no.2-the Chief Engineer (Civil) (Sha) VIDE ORDER Bearing no.CECS/EMD Forfeit/952 DATED 04-01-2024 at ANNEXURE – A; b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to refund the EMD amount of Rs.11,650/- to the petitioner; c) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case in the ends of Justice and equity.” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10724 WP No. 23852 of 2024 2. Heard Sri Sameer S.N., learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.Shylaja S.V., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. The petitioner participates in a tender and secures an award of contract to carry on the work as per the communication dated 24.07.2023. It transpires that the petitioner meets with an accident and was hospitalized. On 06.11.2023, representation comes to be communicated by the petitioner not to cancel the work order on account of his getting hospitalization due to a road accident. The work ought to have completed within 3 months from the date of the issuance of the award of the contract but despite passage of 3 months, there was no completion. Owing to the fact that there was no completion of the work order, an order is passed on 04.01.2024, cancelling the award of contract of the petitioner. Not stopping at that, a communication also blacklists the petitioner. 4. Sri Sameer S.N., learned counsel for petitioner submits that prior to the order of blacklisting, no notice is issued to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10724 WP No. 23852 of 2024 petitioner seeking them why they should not be blacklisted, but only an order is passed cancelling the work order. 5. Smt. Shylaja S.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondents - Corporation would seek to dispute the position and refute the submissions made by the petitioner contending that it was not one, but two notices were issued by way of registered post and also by electronic mail. Both these notices so sent were not received by the petitioner is an admitted fact as the petitioner had left the address by then and the e-mail communication sent is also left unanswered. 6. In that light, the impugned order canceling the work order awarded to the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice as he had no opportunity to repel the allegations made in the impugned order and subsequently blacklisting the petitioner. As the issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass with regard to the violation of the principles of natural justice, I deem it appropriate to read down the impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner as the show cause notice and permit the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10724 WP No. 23852 of 2024 the order. On receipt of the reply from the petitioner, the respondents – Corporation shall pass necessary orders within six weeks thereon, in accordance with law and communicate the said order to the petitioner. 7. All other reliefs that the petitioner is seeking would depend on the outcome of the order that would be passed by the respondents – Corporation after consideration of the reply the petitioner, in accordance with law. 8. With these observations and directions, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. I.A.No.1/2025 also stands disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8