(1.) IN W.P. No. 18142/2013, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the first respondent -Appellate Authority whereby the work awarded on 07.02.2013 in favour of the petitioner is set -aside. As a consequence thereof and on investigation, the second respondent -KSRTC proceeded further and by the order dated 31.07.2013 has cancelled the agreement, forfeited the security deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/ - and also blacklisted the petitioner. The said order is assailed in W.P. No. 37013/2013. The petitioner in that context is seeking continuation of the contractual agreement. Since the issues raised are inter -related and is between the same parties, both the petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. The facts in brief are that the second respondent issued a tender notification dated 10.11.2012 for mechanized/non -mechanized cleaning and maintenance of all bus stands situate in 15 divisions in the State. The petitioner submitted his Tender on 11.01.2013 responding for 11 divisions. On the petitioner being technically qualified, his tender was considered further and his rates were found competitive in respect of 10 divisions. The petitioner was accordingly issued the work order on 07.02.2013 and the agreement was entered into on 27.02.2013. The third respondent herein who was also one of the tenderer in respect of one division filed an appeal before the first respondent as contemplated under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act ('KTPP Act' for short). The petitioner filed his objection statement. The Appellate Authority on considering the rival contentions has allowed the appeal by its order dated 09.04.2013. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has concluded that the petitioner had produced fake documents which were also considered in the pre -qualification.
(2.) ON the work order in favour of the petitioner being set -aside, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.04.2013 calling upon the petitioner to show cause against cancellation, forfeiture of security deposit and blacklisting. The reply dated 22.04.2013 made by the petitioner was considered and the second respondent not being satisfied by the explanation issued a second show cause notice dated 06.06.2013. The petitioner replied to the same on 11.06.2013 reiterating his earlier reply. The second respondent has thereafter passed the impugned order dated 31.07.2013.
(3.) THE second respondent has filed the objection statement justifying their action. Insofar as the manner in which the tender notification was issued and the consideration was made, there is no dispute. The order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the first respondent is sought to be justified on the findings that has been rendered by the first respondent. Though the second respondent has accepted the petitioner's tender, it was impugned by the third respondent in the appeal filed before the first respondent. For pre -qualification, the tenderers were to produce the documents for possessing and owning the equipments as per the tender condition. The petitioner had produced certain documents which were not genuine and though the same had been considered earlier, an investigation was conducted by the Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer of Kempegowda Bus Stand, Bangalore. While investigating the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, on verifying from the source from where it was claimed to have originated, atleast ten documents were found not to be genuine which also included a document of a non -registered company. This indicated that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts and relied upon the fake documents, the consideration of which had helped the petitioner in pre -qualification. In addition to the documents to establish the possession of equipments and machineries, the petitioner had also furnished fake certificates of four entities for having performed their work.