Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 8 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – M/s. Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (RCCL); Respondents – State of Karnataka (Public Works Department), Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd. (KRDCL), and MP24 Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.
  • Background: KRDCL issued an RFP on 25‑02‑2025 for a PPP‑DBFOMT‑Hybrid Annuity road project (Devanahalli‑Vemagal‑Kolar, 48.20 km) valued at ₹7,628,600,000. RCCL joined a consortium led by MP24, named “MP24CC‑RCCL JV”, with a 26 % participation share, formalised by a Joint Bidding Agreement (JBA) and Power of Attorney (POA) dated 11‑04‑2025.
  • Withdrawal Attempt: RCCL emailed MP24 on 16‑04‑2025 (02:37 PM) stating its withdrawal from the consortium; MP24 rejected the withdrawal. RCCL later issued a legal notice on 27‑04‑2025 terminating the MoU and revoking the POA.
  • Bid Submission: MP24 submitted the consortium’s bid on 16‑04‑2025; technical bids opened on 19‑04‑2025, financial bids on 16‑05‑2025, with the consortium’s bid declared the lowest (L1).
  • Allegations of Fraud: The second‑lowest bidder, Bharat Vanijya Eastern Pvt. Ltd., complained on 19‑05‑2025 that the consortium had submitted a forged work‑experience certificate allegedly issued by the Andhra Pradesh Water Resources Department. Verification confirmed the certificate was bogus.
  • Debarment Order: The State issued Government Order No. PWD 203 BMS 2025 on 13‑08‑2025, debarred MP24 for three years from all Karnataka works and RCCL for two years from all PWD works, citing “deliberate connivance” and treating RCCL as an abettor.
  • Initial Relief: RCCL obtained an interim stay (18‑08‑2025) on the debarment as it pertained to RCCL. The writ petition (W.P. No. 24912 of 2025) was later dismissed on 09‑12‑2025.
  • Legal Issues Considered: The Single Judge examined the RFP clauses (2.1.9, 2.1.15, 2.2.1, 2.6.2, 2.11.2, 2.11.5, 3.2.1(e), 4.1) and Appendix‑V’s Joint Bidding Agreement, which impose joint‑and‑several liability on consortium members for all obligations, including the veracity of bid documents.
  • Court Reasoning:
  • The withdrawal email was not communicated to KRDCL and was sent after the technical bid opening; therefore it could not absolve RCCL.
  • RCCL’s own preliminary response (01‑08‑2025) admitted that MP24 uploaded fabricated documents using RCCL’s credentials, which the court treated as conclusive evidence of liability.
  • The principle of joint‑and‑several liability applies to the authenticity of bid documents, not merely post‑award performance.
  • Natural‑justice requirements were satisfied: RCCL received a showcause notice (24‑07‑2025) and an opportunity to respond (01‑08‑2025).
  • The court rejected RCCL’s “clean‑hands” argument and its reliance on several precedents, finding them inapplicable.
  • The debarment period for RCCL was limited to two years (versus three for MP24) reflecting its relatively lesser role.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal (W.A. No. 2140 of 2025) is dismissed. The debarment order dated 13‑08‑2025 remains effective: MP24 debarred for three years from all Karnataka works; RCCL debarred for two years from all PWD works in Karnataka.

Topics: Legal Debarment, Joint‑Liability in PPP Tenders