No order of debarment can be made against a party without first issuing a specific show cause notice, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

ORDER

M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner-M/s KTR Constructions is before this Court calling in question a Government Order dated 11-01-2024 which debars the petitioner for three years from participating in any tenders of Government.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Yashodhar Hegde, appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Smt Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is a Partnership Firm and is a licensed Class-I civil contractor. It is the claim of the petitioner that it has been entrusted with various projects over the years in Bangalore, Mysore and Ramanagara Districts. Documents to that effect are also appended to the petition. The petitioner claims that it periodically undertakes several projects with the Governmental Authorities and as on date has undertaken project works of several crores. The petition also enlists number of works undertaken by the petitioner with the Government which are 16 in number ranging from 19-03-2017 to 09-03-2023. The issue in the lis would commence from 09-03-2022 when the 2nd respondent/Public Works Department issues a notice inviting tender for improvement of road of NH 275 to SH 33 which passes through Kengal, Dasavara, Makali, Ujjaani, Kamplapura in Channapatna Taluk. The petitioner participates in the tender; emerges as the successful bidder as it was the lowest bidder. Thereafter the petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee as necessary in the conditions of tender. A bank guarantee was so furnished by the Firm for a sum of Rs. 2,95,00,000/- which was submitted by one of the officers of the Firm. Based upon receipt of the bank guarantee and all nuances of tender being completed, the 2nd respondent issues work order in favour of the petitioner.

4. On 05-09-2023 two fresh bank guarantees were issued drawn from Union Bank of India. On 18-10-2023 the petitioner requests for extension of time for completion of tender work which was considered by the respondents and time was extended. It appears on the same day, the petitioner is informed that a complaint is received from Contractor Welfare and Recreation Club urging that the petitioner has furnished fake bank guarantee. The petitioner was then is said to have been called upon to submit its explanation. On 21-10-2023, the 2nd respondent issues a notice seeking clarification on the complaint. The petitioner clarifies that it was the fault of a particular employee who had submitted the bank guarantee. The petitioner immediately addresses a letter to the Union Bank of India and gets an appropriate bank guarantee and submits it to the 2nd respondent explaining the circumstances under which the bank guarantee was re-sought. Accepting the said communication, the 2nd respondent communicates a letter extending the time for completion of tender work up to 22-042024. What comes about later after such extension is the impugned order, by which the petitioner has been debarred from participation in any tender of the Government for a period of three years. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel Sri Yashodhar Hegde, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the notice so issued to it did not mention that it would be barred. It was only seeking clarification with regard to the complaint so registered concerning furnishing of a fake bank guarantee. The petitioner explained the circumstances, furnished an appropriate bank guarantee, which is accepted by the 2nd respondent and time for completion of work was extended. With all these factors, the petitioner was given to understand that no action would be taken. But, the action is taken debarring it from participating in any tender of Government, for a period of three years, without issuing any show cause notice of such debarment. It is his submission that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Per c