Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Anantha Krishna Shetty, S/O. Late Appu Mestry – Appellant
Versus
Mangaluru City Corporation Rep. By Its Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking judicial review for debarment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. false documents led to debarment proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding sufficient opportunity and document validity. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. analysis of rules governing debarment proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. recommendations for preventing false document submissions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 36 , 37) |
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
Debarment proceedings under KTPP Rules do not require disclosure of complainant details; adequate opportunities were provided to defendants, and false documentation justifies debarment.
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....
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.
The court affirmed that submitting false documents in tender processes justifies disqualification and forfeiture of bid security under the relevant tender clauses.
The main legal point established is that the Pre Contract Integrity Pact did not provide for debarment in case of a non-compliant bid, and the Independent External Monitors' review did not apply to t....
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.
Submitting a non-compliant bid does not justify debarment; such action requires substantial evidence of wrongdoing as per the Pre Contract Integrity Pact.
Blacklisting a contractor for submitting a false experience certificate requires clear proof of intentional wrongdoing; failure to provide such evidence renders the action disproportionate.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
