Debarment proceedings under KTPP Rules do not require disclosure of complainant details; adequate opportunities were provided to defendants, and false documentation justifies debarment.

ORDER :

Suraj Govindaraj, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of Certiorari, quashing the order dtd 08.09.25 in No. MANAPAA/LN.No.12298/25-26/DM-1 passed by the R2 , vide Annx-A.

b. Issue any other writ or direction to meet the ends of justice.

2. Though in most cases a contractor would seek to endeavour to retain the contract or challenge the awardal of the contract, this case relates to debarment, in which a contractor has sought to mislead all concerned.

3. Respondent No.1, having issued a tender, the petitioner had participated in the tender, submitted various documents, including his license and earlier work done. During the initial verification process, the same were verified and found to be proper. Subsequently, on the detailed verification, when the said documents had been forwarded to the concerned authorities, respondent no.1 was informed that those documents were false and fabricated.

4. The electrical licence, which forms the basis for the petitioner to have participated bearing 1CL01946UDP, was indicated by the Chief Electrical Inspector as not having been issued.

5. Insofar as the work done certificates, 5.1. The petitioner had indicated that the Municipal Corporation, Udupi had issued a work order bearing Indent No.129626. The said Municipal Corporation, Udupi, vide its order dated 25.03.2024, had categorically informed respondent no.1 that no such work order bearing such indent number had been issued by the Udupi Corporation.

5.2. As regard to one other work certificate in respect of work order bearing Indent No.129611 said to have been issued by the Municipal Corporation, Udupi, again the said corporation vide its letter dated 27.03.2024 informed that there was no such work order which had been issued.

5.3. As regards the third work done certificate said to have been issued by the Mangalore Smart City Ltd. bearing Contract No.40/2021 dated 23.06.2020, the petitioner claimed that the work had been done for a sum of Rs.4,62,00,000/-. The Smart City on enquiry had replied that the total bid amount as regards the said work order is Rs.1,92,97,932/-, thus, indicating that the claim on the petitioner was false.

6. In pursuance thereof, the debarment proceedings under Rule 26A of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Rules, 2000 (for short, ‘the KTPP Rules’) had been taken up against the petitioner.

7. When the first notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner replied to the same, stating that the respondent has to furnish him the details of what the complaint against the petitioner is, and what documents the complainant has furnished. Another notice having been issued, once again the petitioner sought for the same information and in addition sought for cross-examining the complainant. Third notice having been issued, the petitioner persisted with the aforesaid request.

8. The matter having been heard, the impugned order at Annexure-A came to be passed debarring the petitioner. It is the said order dated 08.09.2025 which is challenged in these proceedings.

9. The submission of Sri.V.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that:

9.1. The petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to defend the matter inasmuch as the name of the complainant had not been furnished, the details of the complainant had not been furnished, the documents relied upon by the complainant had not been furnished and no opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant.

9.2. His submission