Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 1911
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. R. NATARAJ, J
M/S BHUVANESHWARI ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.17636 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR A/W SRI ABHIJEET
For the Respondents:SRI B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI K.S.MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6
Debarment from participation in tenders must be proportionate and based on fair procedural grounds, ensuring opportunity for defense.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 - Section 14A - Challenge to debarment order - Petitioner debarred for three years based on alleged fake PASARA certificate - Court finds absence of reasonable opportunity provided before debarment - Court modifies debarment to one year stating the penalty must be proportionate to misconduct. (Paras 12, 14, 16, 17)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Scope and powers - While exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court's duty is to ensure fairness and proportionality in the penalties imposed by authorities, especially in administrative actions concerning tenders and contracts. (Paras 11, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, was awarded a tender for providing manpower services. Allegations of producing a fake PASARA certificate led to a debarment from tender participation for three years. The petitioner contends this was done without due process.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the penalty of three years excessive, modifying it to one year, while emphasizing due process in the imposition of administrative penalties.
Issues: The key issues included whether the petitioner was given a fair chance to defend against the allegations and the appropriateness of the penalty duration.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that debarring a tenderer for a maximum of three years is permissible under Section 14A, but such debarment must be proportional and fair, ensuring the opportunity to be heard before imposing penalties.
Result: Writ petition allowed in part; debarment modified to one year.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to debarment based on fake certificate. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from both sides regarding the validity of the debarment. (Para 3 , 9) |
| 3. court's observations on fairness and proportional penalties. (Para 11 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. modification of debarment period to one year. (Para 17) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.VAA(F.E.C.C.M)/P.R./479/2025-26 dated 02.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 ratifying its earlier order bearing No.G¤(vÉÆÃ)/PR/146/2024-25. The petitioner has challenged a consequent order bearing No.V.AA.(A.PA.& HA.Y.NI)/PR/494/2025-26 dated 03.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 debarring him from participating in any tender for a period of three years. The petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order No.V.AA (A.PA.& HA.Y.NI)/PR/146/2024-25 dated 30.07.2024 passed by respondent No.4 debarring petitioner from participating in the BBMP tender for a period of three years. Likewise, he has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order No.HD 57 PCE 2024 Bengaluru dated 15.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 as well as an order bearing No.HE.SA.NI (THO-PA)/P.R./16/2024-25 dated 19.06.2024 passed by respondent No.5 and also an order bearing No.HE.SA.THO.NI(DA)PR/41/2024-25 dated 19.06.2024 passed by the respondent No.6.
2. The petitioner contends that it is a proprietorship concern established in the year 2018 and is in the business of providing manpower services (including security agencies to BBMP and other government departments). It has claimed that on 25.08.2018 a license bearing No.ISD/PSA-104/2018 was issued to the petitioner for engaging in the business of private security agency for a period of five years. On 19.01.2022, the respondent No.5 invited tender for procurement of manpower services (security services) on contract basis. The petitioner was declared as the successful bidder as he had quoted the lowest rates for providing security services in Gandhinagar and Malleshwaram. On 01.07.2022, the respondent No.5 had issued two separate work orders for a period of one year from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023 for Malleshwaram and Gandhinagar constituencies. On the same day i.e., on 01.07.2022, two separate agreements were entered between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 evidencing the terms and conditions of contract. On 01.07.2023, upon satisfaction of the services rendered by the petitioner, the work orders issued were extended by the respondent No.5 until further orders. On 14.05.2024, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 14.05.2024 to the respondent No.1 alleging that the police verification certificate produced for renewing the licence was fake. On 21.05.2024, the respondent No.2 issued a notice bearing No.HD57PCA 2024 to the petitioner regarding initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the PASARA Certificate. On 01.06.2024, the petitioner requested the respondent No.1 to re-initiate the verification process stating that some agencies had helped him to obtain the certificate for which he had paid some amount to them and that he is ready to furnish the documents after obtaining from the concerned authorities if need be. On 06.06.2024, a complaint was lodged by a person named Sri Chandrasekhar Gowda, stating that the petitioner had furnished forged documents for obtaining the PASARA Certificate. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.250/2024 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 420 of IPC. Petitioner claims that the respondent No.1 then directed the petitioner to hand over the PASARA Certificate which was purportedly fake to the State Government. On 19.06.2024, the respondent No.5 on the basis of the order dated 15.06.2024 cancelled the work order with immediate effect. The respondent No.6 also followed suit and cancelled the work order with immediate effect. A notice was then issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner regarding debarment of
