Case Note & Summary
The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka heard two intra-court writ appeals filed by M/s MP24 Construction Company, the lead member of a consortium with Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., against the dismissal of their writ petitions by a Single Judge. The dispute arose from a public procurement tender for a road project on State Highway-96 issued by Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited (KRDCL). The consortium was the lowest bidder, but faced debarment for three years (MP24) and two years (RCCL) on the ground of furnishing a forged work experience certificate purportedly issued by the Andhra Pradesh Water Resources Department. The debarment order dated 13.08.2025 was passed under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 and Rule 26-B of the KTPP Rules by the State Level Debarment Committee. The order also directed registration of an FIR and forfeiture of the earnest money deposit. The procuring entity proposed to award the contract to the second-lowest bidder, Bharat Vanijya Eastern Pvt. Ltd. The writ petitions challenged the debarment, the award, and the forfeiture. The Single Judge dismissed both petitions by a common order dated 09.12.2025. The appeals raised multiple issues including the validity of the debarment under the statutory scheme, violation of natural justice, applicability of Rules 26-A, 26-B and 26-C, proportionality of the debarment period, mitigating circumstances, requirement of a fresh decision by the State Government, authority to issue the order, and the legality of awarding the contract to BVEPL and forfeiting the EMD. The court reserved judgment after hearing the parties.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the debarment order under Section 14-A of the KTPP Act was valid; whether principles of natural justice were violated; whether the debarment period was proportionate; whether the forfeiture of earnest money deposit and award of contract to BVEPL were justified; whether the debarment order required a fresh decision by the State Government; and whether the proper authority issued the debarment order.
Law Points
- debarment under Section 14-A KTPP Act
- furnishing forged experience certificate
- principles of natural justice
- proportionality in debarment period
- consortium liability
- forfeiture of earnest money deposit
- scope of Rules 26-A
- 26-B
- 26-C KTPP Rules
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 32
Writ Appeal No. 2026 of 2025 (GM-TEN) c/w Writ Appeal No. 2028 of 2025 (GM-TEN)
Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, C.M. Poonacha, Justice
K.G. Raghavan, Prashanth Murthy S.G., Kiran V. Ron, Namitha Mahesh B.G., Veeresh R. Budihal, Naman Jhabakh, Jaitra J. Narayan
M/s MP24 Construction Company
State of Karnataka and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-court writ appeal against dismissal of writ petitions challenging debarment order and related decisions in a public procurement tender.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of the Single Judge's order dated 09.12.2025 dismissing W.P. No.25668/2025 and W.P. No.22904/2025, and allowing the writ petitions to quash the debarment order, the decision to award the contract to BVEPL, and the forfeiture of earnest money deposit.
Filing Reason
The State Level Debarment Committee debarred the consortium members for furnishing a forged work experience certificate from Andhra Pradesh Water Resources Department to secure a road project contract under KRDCL, and proposed to forfeit the EMD and award the contract to the L2 bidder.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions by common order dated 09.12.2025.
Issues
Whether the debarment order complied with the statutory scheme under the KTPP Act and Rules?
Whether the debarment order violated principles of natural justice?
Whether the scope of Rules 26-A, 26-B and 26-C was correctly applied?
Whether the debarment period was proportionate?
Whether mitigating circumstances were considered?
Whether a fresh decision by the State Government was required?
Whether the debarment order was issued by the proper authority?
Whether the award of contract to BVEPL was valid?
Whether the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit was justified?
Judgment Excerpts
The dispute pertains to a Request for Proposal dated 25.02.2025 [ the RFP ] issued by KRDCL for the development of road from Devanahalli-Vemagal-Kolar (from 0.000 km to 49.284 km, of design length 48.20 km) of State Highway-96 in the State of Karnataka, on PPP-DBFOMT-Hybrid Annuity Mode.
The State found that the members of the Consortium had committed a fraudulent act by uploading a forged work-experience certificate purportedly issued by the Andhra Pradesh Water Resources Department to secure the contract.
Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 of the RFP, which lie at the centre of the controversy provide for the cancellation of the bid and the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit.
Procedural History
The Consortium submitted the lowest bid (L1) for a road project tender by KRDCL. The State Level Debarment Committee, by order dated 13.08.2025, debarred MP24 for three years and RCCL for two years for furnishing a forged work experience certificate. The order also directed forfeiture of EMD and registration of an FIR. The Consortium challenged the debarment order and related decisions before the Single Judge in two writ petitions (W.P. No.25668/2025 and W.P. No.22904/2025). The Single Judge dismissed both writ petitions on 09.12.2025. The appellant filed intra-court writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, which were heard together by the Division Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999: Section 14-A(2)
- Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2000: Rule 26-B
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
