- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1729 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NO.28, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. STATE LEVEL DEBARMENT COMMITTEE ROOM NO.317, 3RD FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. K.S. HARISH GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S MP24 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (LEAD MEMBER OF CONSORTIUM WITH RAMALINGAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD) A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.95, HADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELAOAL ROAD, BARALU POST, CHANNARAYAATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, BRANCH OFFICE B2, 1201, BRAHMAGINI, MALAGALA BDA FLATS, PHASE 2, 5TH NORTH CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU 560072 Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR 2. KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, SY.NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1 BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SY. NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010. 4. BHARAT VANIJYA EASTERN PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 126, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700073 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 5. VASANT VALAPPA NAIK, S/O VALAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK, CHIEF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SY.NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010. 6. N.SUSHELAMMA MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SY.NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025 (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. PRASHANTH MURTHY S.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL (b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGE JUDGE IN WP No. 25668/2025 (GM-TEN) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Issue notice. 2. Sri. Prashanth Murthy S.G., learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6 is dispensed with. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025 3. The appellant (State of Karnataka), has filed the present appeal, impugning an interim order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25668 of 2025 (GM- TEN) and connected matters. Respondent No.1 (writ petitioner), had filed the said writ petition, inter alia impugning the action of the appellant not to consider its technical bid and subsequently to blacklist the writ petitioner. 4. There is no dispute that the action of the appellant is premised on certain allegations of inter alia furnishing false work certificates for securing the award of the contract in question. 5. The learned counsel state that one of the questions that falls for consideration of the learned Single Judge is, whether the State can award a contract to L2 (Second lowest tenderer), if the writ petitioner's tender is rejected. Apparently, the question whether in such circumstances fresh tenders are required to be invited or whether L2 is required to be awarded the tender, is being considered by the competent authorities. 6. In the meanwhile, the M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited, an undertaking of the State of Karnataka, had issued notices - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025 inviting tenders for executing other work(s). The writ petitioner would be barred from participating in the said tenders as a consequence of the blacklisting order impugned. Since the issue whether the order blacklisting the writ petitioner is sustainable, is being examined by the learned Single Judge; the learned Single Judge has issued an interim order, observing that the decision of the competent authority on the question whether the tender is required to be awarded to L2 or whether fresh tenders are required to be called, would be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. 7. Additionally, the Court also permitted the writ petitioner to participate in the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited, but clarified that the petitioner's participation would be subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions. It was also clarified that the writ petitioner would not claim any equities on account of participating in the tender. 8. Mr. Kiran V. Ron, learned AAG appearing for the appellant submits that the decision of the competent authority regarding whether to award the contract to L2 or issue fresh tenders, is a separate decision and the same cannot be subject matter of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025 decision in the pending writ petition. He also assails the interim order insofar as it permits the writ petitioner to participate in the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited. 9. Insofar as the first issue is concerned – whether the decision of the competent authority to award the contract to L2 or issue fresh tenders – is concerned, it is clear that the same would necessarily have to be subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions. This is so because the writ petitioner's tender has in effect been rejected on the ground of the complaints received and the backlisting order. If the backlisting order is set aside, the writ petitioner would be entitled for being considered for award of the contract. In such circumstances, the question of awarding the contract to L2 or issuing a fresh tender, need not arise. 10. Given the fact that the learned Single Judge has placed the matter for consideration on 05.11.2025, we do not consider it apposite to interfere with the interim arrangement, at this stage. 11. Insofar as the second issue is concerned – that is, permitting the writ petitioner to participate in tenders floated by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited, – the learned Single Judge has amply - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025 clarified that the same would be subject to the outcome of the petitioner's challenge. Further, the writ petitioner would not claim any equities or any advantage of the interim order except to the extent that it removes the disability in participating in the tender on account of the blacklisting order. The rationale of issuing such directions is apparent. If the writ petitioner was to succeed in the writ petition and the blacklisting order is set aside, the writ petitioner could not be visited with any disadvantages on that account. 12. Undeniably, permitting the petitioner to participate in such tenders, may create some uncertainty in the finalisation of the tenders. However we do not consider it apposite to examine the said question, as the writ petitions are listed by the Learned Single Judge for final hearing on 05.11.2025. Thus, the apprehension that there may be a delay at this stage, is unfounded. However, if the petitions are not disposed of and it is likely that finalisation of the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited would be delayed, the appellant would have the liberty to apply afresh. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025 13. The apprehension that the decision of the writ petitions may be delayed on account of any delay by the competent authority (State Cabinet) to take a stand, is also unfounded. 14. As noticed above, the writ petitioner's challenge is premised on actions taken by the appellant against the writ petitioner. Thus, irrespective of whether the State Cabinet takes a decision within time or not, the same would not impede the learned Single Judge from taking up the final hearing of the writ petitions, as scheduled. 15. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26