Karnataka High Court
M/S Ramalingam Construction Company … vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2026
-1-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
RESERVED ON 21.04.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2140 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. RAMALINGAM CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.1, NR TOWER, BINNY MILL ROAD
K.H. RANGANATHA COLONY
BENGALURU - 560 023
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
signed by K SRI ASHWIN C., ADVOCATE)
P SWETHA
Location: AND:
High Court
of Karnataka
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO. 335, 3RD FLOOR
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
-2-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. MP 24 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.
NO. 95, HADENAHALLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA
SHRAVANABELAGOLA ROAD
HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 135
REPRESENTED BY
ITS PROPRIETOR
KANTHARAJA H.M.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 &
SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
09.12.2025 IN W.P. No. 24912 OF 2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH
THE GOVERNMENT ORDER No. PWD 203 BMS 2025, BENGALURU
DATED 13.08.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT
IS CONCERNED & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
-3-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHAC.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. This intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 09.12.2025
[the impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.No.24912 of 2025 (GM-RES), captioned “M/s.
Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
and Others“, whereby the said writ petition came to be dismissed.
While disposing of W.P.No.24912 of 2025, the learned Single Judge
expressly observed that the reasons assigned in the common order
disposing of W.P.No.25668 of 2025 and connected matters were to
be read along with the impugned order, the writ petitioner herein
having been arrayed as the third respondent in those connected
petitions.
2. The appellant, M/s Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt.
Ltd. [RCCL], is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956 and is engaged in the infrastructure sector. RCCL was a
member of a consortium, with M/S MP24 Construction Company
-4-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
[MP24] as the lead member, constituted to participate in the tender
hereinafter described.
3. The respondents include the State of Karnataka, represented
by the Public Works Department [the State]; the Karnataka Road
Development Corporation Limited [KRDCL], the procuring entity for
the tender; and MP24, arrayed as the third respondent.
PREFATORY FACTS
4. KRDCL, a wholly-owned company of the Government of
Karnataka, issued a Request for Proposal dated 25.02.2025 [the
RFP] inviting bids for the development of road from Devanahalli-
Vemagal-Kolar (from 0.000 km to 49.284 km) of State Highway-96,
of design length 48.20 km, in the State of Karnataka, on PPP-
DBFOMT-Hybrid Annuity Mode [the project], at an estimated value
of 762,86,00,000/-. The bid was administered through the
Karnataka Public Procurement Portal. By a Memorandum of
Understanding dated 02.04.2025 [the MoU], RCCL agreed to
participate in the tender as a member of a consortium with MP24
under the name and style of “MP24CC-RCCL JV” [the consortium].
It was agreed that MP24 would be the Lead Member. According to
RCCL, its role was that of a non-active partner providing only
-5-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
advisory support, with a 26% participation share. The consortium
was formalised by a Joint Bidding Agreement dated 11.04.2025 [the
JBA] and a Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 [the POA] in favour
of MP24. (Both the JBA and the POA were executed on a stamp
paper purchased on 07.04.2025.)
5. RCCL states that it sent an e-mail to MP24 at 02:37 PM on
16.04.2025–that is, a few hours before the closing of bid
submission–informing MP24 of its withdrawal from the consortium
and the JBA. MP24 states that it responded by e-mail at 04:07 PM,
rejecting the withdrawal as unacceptable and contrary to the binding
consortium arrangements. It is RCCL’s case that the said e-mail
was occasioned by MP24’s failure to share the bid-related
documents with RCCL and the resulting issues between the parties;
that since the e-mail was an internal communication, it was not
marked to KRDCL; that RCCL had no knowledge, at that stage or
until 19.05.2025, the uploading of any fabricated document by
MP24; and that the consortium stood dissolved prior to the opening
of the Technical Bid.
6. MP24 submitted the bid on behalf of the consortium on
16.04.2025, with RCCL listed as a member. Four (4) Bids were
-6-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
received. The Technical Bids were opened on 19.04.2025 and all
four bidders were declared technically qualified. The Financial Bids
were opened on 16.05.2025, and the consortium’s bid was the
lowest (L1).
7. RCCL caused a legal notice dated 27.04.2025 to be sent to
MP24, terminating the MoU and revoking the POA, on the grounds
set out therein, namely MP24’s continued misuse of RCCL’s
credentials in the bid process, despite the withdrawal mail sent by
RCCL on 16.04.2025.
8. On 19.05.2025, M/s Bharat Vanijya Eastern Pvt. Ltd.
[BVEPL], the second-lowest (L2) bidder, addressed a complaint to
KRDCL and the State alleging that the consortium had furnished
fabricated documents and, in particular, a work-experience
certificate purportedly issued by the Andhra Pradesh Water
Resources Department [the APWRD]. Thereafter, by a letter dated
22.05.2025 bearing reference No.RCCL/KARO/KRDCL/2025-26-01
(received by KRDCL through e-mail on 26.05.2025), RCCL formally
communicated to KRDCL that MP24 had participated in the tender
by illegally using RCCL’s credentials without its consent, and
-7-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
requested KRDCL to reject the bid submitted in the name of the
consortium.
9. The enquiries with the APWRD confirmed that the certificate
purportedly issued by it was bogus and forged. The matter was
placed before the Board of KRDCL and, on the recommendation of
the Tender Evaluation Committee [TEC], before the State
Government.
10. The State issued a notice dated 24.07.2025 (received by
RCCL by e-mail on 30.07.2025) regarding the fraudulent submission
of fake documents by the consortium and calling upon RCCL to
appear before the State Level Debarment Committee [the SLDC] on
01.08.2025.
11. RCCL appeared on 01.08.2025 and filed a preliminary
response of even date. RCCL furnished its preliminary response
dated 01.08.2025, inter alia, stating that it had withdrawn from the
consortium on 16.04.2025 by e-mail; that MP24 had failed to
respond to that e-mail and had misused RCCL’s credentials to
upload the bid documents as a consortium; that RCCL had
thereafter, through its Advocate, issued the legal notice dated
27.04.2025, terminating the MoU and revoking the POA; and that,
-8-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
accordingly, the alleged fraudulent acts of MP24 were committed
without RCCL’s knowledge or consent.
12. By the Government Order bearing No.PWD 203 BMS 2025
dated 13.08.2025 [the impugned debarment order], issued under
Section 14-A(2) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurements Act, 1999 [the KTPP Act] read with Rule 26-B of the
Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 [the
KTPP Rules], the State debarred MP24 for three years from all
works in the State of Karnataka and RCCL for two years from all
PWD works in the State of Karnataka. It is material to note that
RCCL was debarred “for deliberate connivance”, the State having
found that RCCL had “failed to make any report against his partner
till complaint”. The State held that RCCL “should be treated as
abettor in the FIR”.1
13. Aggrieved by the impugned debarment order, RCCL instituted
W.P.No.24912 of 2025 before this Court, inter alia, seeking the
quashing of the said order insofar as it debarred RCCL. By order
dated 18.08.2025, the learned Single Judge granted an interim
1
In the impugned debarment Order, the expression “Respondent 1” denotes MP24 and
the expression “Respondent 2” denotes RCCL, in accordance with the array of parties
before the State Level Debarment Committee.
-9-
WA No. 2140 of 2025
order staying the operation of the impugned debarment order
insofar as it related to RCCL. The said order was operative till the
dismissal of the writ petition.
14. By order dated 05.11.2025, W.P.No.24912 of 2025 was de-
linked from the connected petitions filed by MP24 and directed to be
heard separately. By the impugned order dated 09.12.2025, the
learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.24912 of 2025, with the
express observation that the reasons recorded in the common order
in W.P.No.25668 of 2025 and connected matters were to be read
along with the impugned order.
15. The relief sought by RCCL in W.P.No.24912 of 2025 was the
quashing of the impugned debarment order dated 13.08.2025,
insofar as it debarred RCCL for a period of two years from all PWD
works in the State of Karnataka for the alleged submission of fake
documents in the tender for the project.
IMPUGNED ORDER
16. The learned Single Judge framed the following question for
consideration: “whether blacklisting of the petitioner by the
respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A, requires interference by this
Court?”
– 10 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
17. The learned Single Judge observed that the terms and
conditions of the RFP play a vital role in assessing the credibility of
a bidder, and extracted Sections 2.1.9, 2.1.15(f) and (g), 2.2.1(a)
and (b), 2.6.2, 2.11.2, 2.11.5, 3.2.1(e) and 4.1 of the RFP, together
with Section 5 of Appendix-V (the Joint Bidding Agreement format),
which embodies the principle of joint and several liability of the
parties for all obligations and liabilities relating to the project till the
achievement of Financial Close.
18. On the relationship between RCCL and MP24, the learned
Single Judge observed that, upon the formation of the consortium
and participation in the bidding process, the members are bound by
the principle of joint and several liability; that “each member of the
consortium, irrespective of their active / non-active / limited / lead
bidder / advisory or any of incidental nature of participation would
suffer penalty of disqualification, being a member of the
consortium”; and that, as per Section 2 of Appendix-V, once the
consortium is formed and has participated in the bidding process,
the members are barred from revoking the joint venture/the POA/
MoU.
– 11 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
19. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that the alleged
unilateral withdrawal of RCCL from the consortium by the e-mail
dated 16.04.2025 could not absolve RCCL, for the reasons that: (i)
the said e-mail was not marked or sent to KRDCL; (ii) KRDCL was
informed of RCCL’s withdrawal by the letter dated 22.05.2025,
which was after the opening of both the Technical Bid (on
19.04.2025) and the Financial Bid (on 16.05.2025); (iii) had RCCL
been more cautious, nothing prevented it from informing KRDCL on
16.04.2025 itself; and (iv) the conduct of RCCL in this regard was
deserving of deprecation. The learned Single Judge further
observed that the conduct of RCCL was that of a “fence sitter”,
awaiting the outcome of the Technical Bid before disclosing the
alleged misconduct of MP24.
20. The learned Single Judge placed reliance upon paragraph 10
of RCCL’s preliminary response dated 01.08.2025 to hold that
RCCL had itself admitted that MP24 had uploaded fabricated
documents using its credentials, and that the said admission was
conclusive against RCCL. The court also referred to the decisions in
– 12 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram2 and
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad3.
21. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention that the
principles of natural justice were violated. The court observed that
the parameters of fairness were duly met inasmuch as a show-
cause notice dated 24.07.2025 (received by RCCL on 30.07.2025)
had been issued and the preliminary response dated 01.08.2025
had been filed and considered. The court also held that, having
regard to the joint and several liability of the consortium members,
the “end result would be the same” — namely, the debarment of
RCCL — even if a further opportunity of personal hearing had been
afforded. Such an opportunity would be an “empty formality”.
22. The learned Single Judge also held that RCCL had not
approached the Court with clean hands, in view of the averments in
paragraphs 12 to 14 of W.P.No.24912 of 2025, which were read as
being contrary to RCCL’s own e-mail dated 16.04.2025. The court
applied the principle laid down in Amar Singh v. Union of India4
and held that RCCL was not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
2
(1974) 1 SCC 242
3
(2005) 11 SCC 314
4
(2011) 7 SCC 69
– 13 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
23. The learned Single Judge also observed that the judgments
relied upon by Senior Counsel for RCCL — namely Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar5, Chintamanrao v.
State of Madhya Pradesh6, Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited v.
State of Uttar Pradesh7, and Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail
Singh8, — were not applicable to the facts, in view of the admission
made by RCCL and its conduct as a member of the consortium.
24. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held that
W.P.No.24912 of 2025 was devoid of merits and liable to be
rejected, and that the reasons assigned in the common order in
W.P.No.25668 of 2025 and connected matters were to be read
along with the impugned order. The writ petition was dismissed
accordingly.
25. Thereafter, on 23.12.2025, RCCL instituted the present
appeal, W.A. No.2140 of 2025, before this Court, seeking the setting
aside of the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 in W.P.No.24912 of
2025.
5
1994 Supp (2) SCC 391
6
1950 SCC OnLine SC 34
7
(2021) 1 SCC 804
8
(1984) 1 SCC 390
– 14 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
26. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of RCCL
submitted that: (i) the impugned Government Order does not
attribute a single act of fraud to RCCL, and the alleged fabricated
documents were work-done certificates pertaining to MP24 and
RCCL was not concerned with that certificate; (ii) culpability in a
penal debarment must be assessed individually, and a consortium
member cannot be visited with vicarious penal liability in the
absence of evidence of connivance, knowledge or active
involvement; (iii) the principle of joint and several liability under
Section 5 of Appendix-V relates to the performance of contractual
obligations post-award and cannot be extended to penal liability for
fraud; (iv) paragraph 10 of RCCL’s preliminary response attributed
the act of uploading to MP24 and did not amount to an admission of
joint culpability; (v) the impugned debarment order was passed
without the approval of the Minister concerned and was, therefore,
contrary to Rule 17 of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of
Business) Rules, 1977; and (vi) the RFP and the JBA contemplate
only disqualification from the subject bid, a contractual consequence
which RCCL did not contest, and could not furnish the foundation for
statutory debarment from all PWD works under the KTPP Act. He
– 15 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
contended that the learned Single Judge had conflated
disqualification with debarment.
27. On the finding of “connivance”, RCCL submitted that there
can be no automatic attribution of knowledge of forgery without
specific evidence, and that mere consent to join a consortium does
not amount to connivance, placing reliance on Charan Lal Sahu
(Supra) and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer9,. On the question of
penalty, RCCL submitted that a two-year debarment was
disproportionate to the alleged delinquency – that is, mere
participation in the consortium, without any direct involvement. The
learned senior counsel referred to Vetindia Pharmaceuticals
Limited (Supra) and contended that an order entailing serious civil
consequences must satisfy the proportionality test. He relied on the
decision in Chintamanrao (Supra) and submitted that, absent an
express statutory provision, the requirement to afford a fair
opportunity is implicit.
28. The learned AAG countered the aforesaid submissions. He
argued that RCCL, being a member of the consortium which had
uploaded a fabricated document, was liable to debarment along with
9
(2014) 10 SCC 473
– 16 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
MP24; that the joint and several liability of the members of the
consortium extended not merely to the performance of post-award
obligations but to the veracity and authenticity of the documents
submitted in support of the bid. He submitted that a consortium is a
relationship of mutual agency analogous to a partnership, in which
the fraud of one member is also imputed to the others. He referred
to the decision of the Supreme Court in New Horizons Ltd. v.
Union of India10. He also emphasised that under Section 2 of
Appendix-V, members of a consortium are barred from revoking the
joint venture, the POA, or MoU once the tender document has been
filed.
29. He submitted that the principles of natural justice were duly
complied with. Notices were issued to RCCL, it had responded to
the notices and was also afforded an opportunity to be heard.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION:
30. RCCL has challenged the impugned debarment order on
several grounds, which are similar to the grounds advanced by
MP24 in its writ appeals (W.A. 2026/2025 and W.A. 2028/2025).
10
(1995) 1 SCC 478
– 17 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
31. The contentions that the impugned debarment order is
passed in violation of the principles of natural justice; that the
impugned debarment order is contrary to Rule 26-B of the KTPP
Rules as the State Government has not independently evaluated
the recommendations of the SLDC; and that the impugned
debarment order has not been issued by a person authorized under
the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977,
are covered by the decision rendered in the connected appeals
(W.A.No.2026/2025 and W.A.No.2028/2025). These contentions are
rejected for the reasons set out in the said decision, which may be
read as a part of the present judgment.
32. RCCL’s principal defence against its debarment is that it was
not liable for furnishing a false certificate as the bid documents were
furnished by MP24 without sharing the same with it; and that the
submission of the tender on its behalf was unauthorised, as it had
withdrawn from the consortium prior to furnishing the said bid.
KRDCL, as well as the SLDC, did not accept that RCCL could
absolve itself of the liability for furnishing a false certificate, primarily
because the bid was also submitted on RCCL’s behalf, and it had
not communicated any reservations as to the bid to KRDCL prior to
the opening of the technical bid.
– 18 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
33. The tender documents expressly provide that the joint venture
members would be jointly and severally responsible for the
correctness, veracity and authenticity of the documents and
information submitted in support of the bid.
34. Clause 2.1.15 of the RFP expressly required the consortium
members to enter into a Joint Bidding Agreement substantially in the
form stipulated in Appendix V of the RFP. Paragraph 2.1.15(g) of
the RFP is relevant and is set out below:
“(g) members of the Consortium shall enter into a
binding Joint Bidding Agreement, substantially in
the form specified at Appendix-V (the “Jt. Bidding
Agreement”), for the purpose of submitting a Bid.
The Jt. Bidding Agreement, to be submitted along
with the Application, shall, inter alia:
i. convey the intent to form an SPV, solely for the
purpose of domiciling the Project and no other
purpose, with shareholding/ownership equity
commitment(s) in accordance with this RFP, which
would enter into the Concession Agreement and
subsequently perform all the obligations of the
Concessionaire in terms of the Concession
Agreement, in case the concession to undertake
the Project is awarded to the Consortium;
ii. clearly outline the proposed roles and
responsibilities, if any, of each member;
iii. commit the minimum equity stake to be held by
each member;
iv. commit that each of the members, whose
experience will be evaluated for the purposes of
this RFP, shall subscribe to 26% (twenty six per
– 19 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
cent) or more of the paid up and subscribed equity
of the SPV and shall further commit that each such
member shall, for a period of 2 (two) years from the
date of commercial operation of the Project, hold
equity share capital not less than: (i) 26% (twenty
six per cent) of the subscribed and paid up equity
share capital of the SPV: and (ii) 5% (five per cent)
of the Total Project Cost specified in the
Concession Agreement;
v. members of the Consortium undertake that they
shall collectively hold at least 51% (fifty one per
cent) of the subscribed and paid up equity of the
SPV at all times until two years of the commercial
operation date of the Project; and
vi. include a statement to the effect that all members of
the Consortium shall be liable jointly and severally
for all obligations of the Concessionaire in relation
to the Project until the Financial Close of the
Project is achieved in accordance with the
Concession Agreement; and
[emphasis added]
35. Section 2.1.9 of the RFP also expressly provides that, if the
bidder is a consortium, the members would be required to furnish
the POA in favour of any member, who would be identified as the
lead member. The said paragraph is set out below:
“2.1.9 In case the Bidder is a Consortium, the
Members thereof should furnish a Power of
Attorney in favour of any Member, which Member
shall thereafter be identified as the Lead Member,
in the format at Appendix IV. In case the Bidder is a
Consortium, Joint Bidding Agreement in the format
at Appendix V shall be submitted by the Bidder.”
– 20 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
36. In terms of the RFP documents, MP24 and RCCL had
entered into a JBA, and RCCL had furnished the POA in favour of
MP24, which was identified as the Lead Member.
37. The JBA also clearly stipulated that the parties would be
jointly and severally responsible for all obligations and liabilities
relating to the Project and in accordance with the terms of the RFP.
38. Clause 5 of the JBA is reproduced below:
“5. Joint and Several Liability
The Parties do hereby undertake to be jointly and
severally responsible for all obligations and
liabilities relating to the Project and in accordance
with the terms of the RFP and the Concession
Agreement, till such time as the Financial Close for
the Project is achieved under and in accordance
with the Concession Agreement.”
39. The bid was submitted pursuant to the POA granted by RCCL
in favour of MP24. Plainly, the same is binding on RCCL. Although
RCCL claims to have revoked the POA, the formal revocation, by
way of legal notice dated 27.04.2025, came after the bid was
submitted and the technical bids were opened. The POA was valid
and subsisting on the day of submission of the bid.
40. Although RCCL claims that it had withdrawn MP24’s authority
to furnish the bid by an e-mail dated 16.04.2025, no such intimation
– 21 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
was furnished to KRDCL. RCCL claims that it issued a legal notice
dated 27.04.2025 terminating the MoU with MP24 dated 02.04.2025
and also revoked the POA. This too was not communicated to
KRDCL at the material time. The technical bids were opened on
19.04.2025. Even at that stage, RCCL did not inform KRDCL that it
was not standing by the consortium’s bid or that it had any
reservations regarding the documents submitted with the bid. The
financial bid was opened on 16.05.2025. On 19.05.2025, KRDCL
received BVEPL’s complaint regarding furnishing of a false work
experience certificate. Thereafter, RCCL issued a letter dated
22.05.2025 requesting that the tender submitted by MP24 be
rejected, as it was submitted without the consent or knowledge of
RCCL.
41. KRDCL was neither informed of any fraudulent submission of
documents nor of the withdrawal of MP24’s authority to submit a bid
prior to the opening of the bids.
42. On the facts, the KRDCL and the SLDC rejected the
contention that RCCL was absolved of accountability for the bid
furnished by the consortium.
– 22 –
WA No. 2140 of 2025
43. Therefore, we find no fault with the conclusion of KRDCL and
the SLDC that RCCL is also accountable for the consortium’s bid.11
44. We may note that the SLDC has also made an allowance for
the relatively lesser role attributed to RCCL in furnishing the false
certificate and restricted the debarment to a period of two years only
for PWD works in the State of Karnataka instead of three years for
all works in the State of Karnataka, as was done in the case of
MP24.
45. We find no grounds to interfere with the decision of the
learned Single Judge.
46. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KPS/KMV
11
Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
