Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same party, who is the proprietor of Janaki Travel Agency, Bangalore. The said Agency is in the business of providing vehicles on rental basis to the government agencies and local bodies. The petitioner claims to have been rendering blemish less services to the respondents for the last 14 years. The respondents issued the tender notification, dated 9.10.2014 (Annexure-A) inviting the Item Rate tenders for hiring of light commercial vehicles to Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) officials. The petitioner responded to the said tender notification. His technical bid, on scrutiny, was held to have been acceptable. The financial bid was opened on 10.12.2014. He claims to be the L1 bidder. It is his case that the respondents blacklisted him, as he has emerged L1 bidder.

2. W.P. No. 1758/2015 is filed raising the challenge to the blacklisting order, dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure-G). W.P. No. 2709/2015 is filed challenging the issuance of fresh tender notification.

3. Sri B.K. Manjunath, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the respondents who have committed the default in the payment of the hire charges. He brings to my notice a number of dishonoured cheques in support of his submissions. He submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned blacklisting order, which in effect is the civil death for the petitioner. He submits that the blacklisting order is without the authority of law. Under the tender notification, the blacklisting can be done, only if the accepted tenderer commits any violation of the terms contained in the tender notification, agreement or in the work order. In the instant case, even before the petitioner's tender is accepted, they have passed the blacklisting order invoking the clauses of the earlier notifications, which have already spent themselves.

4. He submits that the petitioner has been providing the vehicles to the respondents for the last 14 years. The respondents have issued umpteen number of appreciation certificates from 2001 to 2014. Some of them are produced as Annexures-L to S. Now to hold that the petitioner's services have not been satisfactory is the height of arbitrariness, so contends the learned counsel.

5. Sri N.R. Jagadeeswara, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Clauses 3 and 4 in Section-V of the tender notification clearly enable the respondents to pass the impugned blacklisting orders. They read as follows:

"3. BBMP reserves the right to disqualify such bidders who have a record of not meeting contractual obligations against earlier contract entered in the BBMP.

4. BBMP reserves the right to black list a bidder for a suitable period in case he fails to honor his bid without sufficient ground."

6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner's services are full of deficiencies. He was not sending the vehicles on time. Some of the vehicles were not in good condition. He was not providing the stand-by vehicles in case of break-down of the vehicles sent. He submits that such complaints were received by a large number of officials of BBMP. He submits that some of the officials expressed their difficulty in discharging their duties due to non-reporting of the vehicles on time.

7. He brings to my notice the letter, dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure-R3) sent by the Executive Engineer to the petitioner, which lists out the deficiencies on the part of the petitioner and requires him to give the explanation within three days. It contains further ultimatum that if the petitioner fails, the matter would be reported to the Commissioner for blacklisting the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not replied to the show-cause notice, dated 16.12.2014. He submits that the petitioner has also suppressed the material fact of receiving the show-cause notice in the memorandum of the writ petition. He submits that on earlier o