A consortium member is jointly liable for the actions of its partners during bidding, and blacklisting imposes severe consequences proportional to misconduct, requiring strict adherence to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

E.S. Indiresh, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is assailing the Government order bearing No.PWD 203 BMS 2025 dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure-A), passed by the respondent No.1 debarring the petitioner for a period of two years, from all PWD works in the State of Karnataka for allegedly submitting fake documents in the tender for development of road as per Annexure-B.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this Writ Petition are that, the respondent No.2 had invited tender dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure-B) for development of road from Devanahalli - Vemagal - Kolar of State Highway - 96. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure-C) dated 02.04.2025 with respondent No.3 to participate as a consortium in the name and style of MP24CC-RCCL JV, as the respondent No.3 requested the petitioner to assist / advice in the development work. In terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, as a standard procedure, petitioner had entered into joint bidding agreement dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure-D) and power of attorney dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure-E), with the respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the role of the petitioner in the consortium was limited and the nature of function of the petitioner is only advisory / support to respondent No.3, being a non active partner in the consortium as to participate for bid of the project. It is also resolved between the petitioner and respondent No.3 that all the bid documents of the consortium would be prepared and submitted by the respondent No.3 for the purpose of participating in the bid for the project. The petitioner has pleaded the calendar of events at paragraph No.10 of the Writ Petition, with regard to the tender document.

3. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner is having share holding of 26%, being a non active partner with the respondent No.3. It is further pleaded in the Writ Petition that the respondent No.3, neither responded nor furnished any bid related documents to the petitioner for inspection of documents to be uploaded at the time of participating in the tender process and as such, the petitioner was constrained to withdraw from the consortium as per e-mail dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-F). It is the allegation of the petitioner that despite the petitioner had withdrawn from the consortium formed between itself with the respondent No.3, however, the respondent No.3 fraudulently participated in the bid as a lead bidder presenting the petitioner as a joint venture bidder, even after express revocation by the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the fraudulent act of the respondent No.3 only when the respondent No.2 had visited the petitioner's Office seeking certain additional information and verification of documents after the respondent No.3 submitted the bid as a consortium along with petitioner. It is further stated that, since the respondent No.3 failed to respond to the e-mail dated 16.04.2025 and as such, the petitioner caused legal notice dated 27.04.2025 (Annexure-G), terminating the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.04.2025 and revoked the power of attorney dated 11.04.2025. It is alleged in the Writ Petition that, respondent No.3 has intentionally and fraudulently continued to participate in the financial bid which was held on 16.05.2025 by misrepresenting that the petitioner - Company continued to be member of consortium. It is stated that, the consortium of the petitioner and the respondent No.3 was declared as L1 bidder despite the petitioner withdrawing from the consortium. It is further stated that, th