An entity is vicariously liable for the fraudulent acts of its employees in tender processes, and blacklisting is a significant action taken in public interest when misconduct is identified.

ORDER :

E.S. Indiresh, J.

In these writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, and as such, at the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this Common order.

2. In W.P.No.25668 of 2025, the petitioner is assailing the Government Order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1, as illegal and unconstitutional.

3. In W.P.No.22904 of 2025, the petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.4, inter alia seeks quashing of the letter dated 25.07.2025, (Annexure-T), letter dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure-X1) and letter dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure-AF) and further seeking direction to the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to issue letter of award to the petitioner in pursuance of the Request For Proposal (Annexure-B).

4. In W.P.No.31906 of 2025, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus to the respondent to restore the access of the Karnataka e-Procurement Portal to the petitioner as per the interim order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25668 of 2025 inter-alia directing the respondents to enable the petitioner to participate in ongoing and forthcoming tenders published on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal as per the interim order passed by this court in W.P.No.25668 of 2025.

FACTS IN WP NO.25668 OF 2025:

5. The petitioner claims to be certified contractor had completed several major public works projects. The respondent-Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd., (for short, 'Corporation), invited tender in relation to development of road from Devanahalli - Vemagal - Kolar of SH-96 as per Annexure-B. The petitioner, in joint venture with one M/s. Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'RCCL') submitted its bid and was declared technically qualified by the Tender Scrutiny Committee and ranked as the lowest (L1) bidder. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.5 being a rival bidder lodged a complaint to the respondent-Corporation alleging that one of the Work Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner in Technical Bid was forged and fabricated. The petitioner in its letter dated 19.06.2025 clarified that the said certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh Water Resources Department, has been uploaded by its employee, without knowledge or authorization by the petitioner and as such, the petitioner lodged complaint with the jurisdictional Police and thereby, F.I.R. has been registered against their employee for having uploaded the fabricated certificate. The said aspect was communicated to the respondent-Corporation as per Annexure-D. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 by letter dated 25.07.2025, addressed to the respondent No.1, recommending for disqualification of the petitioner in the Tender process and decided to award contract in favour of the respondent No.5 i.e., L2 Bidder. The respondent No.2 sought for clarification with regard to circulars dated 11.05.2022 and 16.01.2025 as to awarding the contract in favour of the respondent No.5-L2 Bidder as per Annexure-F. It is also stated that the Circular dated 03.12.2002 (Annexure- G) was in force as to decide on awarding work order. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegation made against the petitioner was referred to the State Level Debarment Committee (respondent No.4) and therefore, the petitioner filed WP No.22904 of 2025 before this Court, alleging bias and favoritism by the respondent-Authorities in favour of the respondent No.5-L2 Bidder. The petitioner had produced the complaint and F.I.R. made against the resp