- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30965 WP No. 23904 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23904 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S KRISHI AB NC (JV) NO.42, 1ST A CROSS, SUMUKHA LAYOUT, OPP. ABBAIAH NAIDU STUDIO, CHIKKALASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560061 REP BY ITS LEAD PARTNER MR. N KUMAR. 2. M/S KRISHI INFRATECH A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19, GROUND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560085 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. N KUMAR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAYA HOLLA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER GATI SHAKTI, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30965 WP No. 23904 of 2025 RAIL SANRAKSHAN BHAVAN, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560003. 2. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY GATI SHAKTI, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, RAIL SANRAKSHAN BHAVAN, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560003. REP. BY CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ARVIND KAMATH K., ASG) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO. W. 359/GS/SBC/CORRES DATED 23.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-J); DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COST OF THIS WP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30965 WP No. 23904 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The question for consideration in the present petition is rather narrow: Should this Court quash the Show Cause Notice dated 23.07.2025 [Annexure-J] issued by the first respondent to the petitioners or should there be a disposal with certain observations? The first petitioner is a Joint Venture [JV] which comprises three participants, including one M/s.Narayani Constructions, and the petitioners are in the midst of executing a project for the respondents upon its successful participation in the tender floated. The first respondent has issued the impugned Show Cause Notice calling upon the petitioners to offer explanations on why action should not be taken to terminate the agreement and blacklist all the constituents of the JV for two years. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30965 WP No. 23904 of 2025 2. The reason for the Show Cause Notice, as discerned from the records and the rival submissions by Sri.Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Arvind Kamath K., the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents, is the constitution of M/s. Narayani Constructions [one of the JV constituents–the Firm] and the representation of this constituent. According to the first respondent, there is suppression and a person, who could not have represented the Firm, has signed the JV and other related papers, and according to the petitioners, this is not well founded because there is a reconstitution of the Firm with a duly signed Power of Attorney in favour of the signatory. 3. Sri Udaya Holla submits that the petitioners' grievance is lest there be a decision as a formality because the Show Cause Notice reads that the Power of Attorney, which is relied upon by the petitioners to show that the signatory was duly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30965 WP No. 23904 of 2025 authorized, is invalid. The learned Senior Counsel submits that, as is held by the Apex Court in Siemens Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Others1, there would be a cause to a person to invoke this Court's jurisdiction if it can be demonstrated that Show Cause Notice is despite a conclusion to take a particular decision. The learned Senior Counsel emphasizes the exposition, when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable and that in such an event, even if the Court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. 4. Sri Arvind Kamath K., refuting the assertion that any opinion is expressed in the Show Cause Notice, submits that this Court must consider the petitioners' grievance in the light of what is stated in the Response dated 23.07.2025 to the Show Cause 1 (2006) 12 SCC 33 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30965 WP No. 23904 of 2025 Notice. The learned Additional Solicitor General proposes to canvass that the petitioners have admitted to certain suppression and cannot justifiably explain that the signatory to the documents was authorized as he no longer was part of the Firm. 5. The rival submissions are recorded only to emphasize that any decision must be made in light of the rival contentions. It emerges as an undisputed fact that the first respondent is yet to consider the petitioners’ Response dated 23.07.2025. The first respondent, however, must offer reasons based on the rival contentions because the reasons will have to be at the core of the decision [any which way]. The Apex Court, in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan2, has explained the importance of reason thus: 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496. These principles are also reiterated by the Apex Court in (2019) 15 SCC 1. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30965 WP No. 23904 of 2025 15. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the “inscrutable face of a sphinx”. The Apex Court, even while summarising its discussion after reference to earlier decisions, has held thus while underscoring the salient; (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) …….. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30965 WP No. 23904 of 2025 (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision- making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. [h] …….. This Court, therefore, disposes of the petition reiterating that the first respondent shall consider all circumstances by a reasoned order emphasizing that even the decision by an authority must be visited by reasons. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr