Patna High Court Upholds Blacklisting Order Against Contractor for Submitting Forged Certificate in Tender [Read Judgment]

Patna: The Patna High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a blacklisting order, emphasizing that the submission of forged certificates in public tenders undermines trust and warrants appropriate action, even if a criminal investigation is still pending.

Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a significant judgment addressing the consequences of submitting false documents in government tender processes.

The court considered a writ petition filed by M/S R.S. Construction against the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation’s decision to blacklist the firm. The court noted:

“The petitioner, a partnership firm, has approached this Court against the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Chief Engineer-cum-Registering Authority, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Patna, blacklisting the registration of the petitioner/firm.”

Regarding the specific allegations, the court observed:

“On verification of the documents, it was found that no such performance/experience certificate as was uploaded by the petitioner was ever issued from the office of VEGFED. This was communicated by the Managing Director of VEGFED vide his communication dated 24.04.2023.”

Highlighting the serious nature of the forgery, the court stated:

“Submitting a forged certificate leading to the registration of an FIR—even though the investigation is still pending—is a serious matter which affects and jeopardizes the trust of the Corporation. It is the duty of every Corporation to warn other counterparts regarding such persons.”

On the aspect of natural justice, the court remarked:

“The petitioner/firm had an opportunity to explain the evidence against it and to represent why it should not be blacklisted, in the appeal.”

Despite multiple opportunities to present its case, the court noted:

“There is no statement on behalf of the petitioner/firm that the certificate uploaded by it is not forged.”

After considering legal precedents that describe blacklisting as “one of the most drastic remedies,” the court upheld the modified penalty of three years’ blacklisting instead of the initial indefinite period.

The petitioner was represented by Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: M/S R.S. Construction vs. The Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation & Ors.

[Read Judgment]