In M/S R.S Construction vs The Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation & Ors. (2025), the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed: “Submitting of forged certificate leading to the registration of an FIR, even though the investigation with respect to the same is pending, is a serious matter which affects and jeopardizes the trust of the Corporation and it is the duty of every Corporation to warn the other counterparts regarding such persons.” The respondents were: Chairman -cum- Managing Director cum Appellate Authority, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Patna, Chief Engineer cum Registering Authority, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Patna and Superintending Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction, Patna. The judgement concluded: "we do not wish to interfere with the decision of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner/firm for three years."
The petitioner had approached the High Court against the order dated June 22, 2023 passed by the Chief Engineer-cum Registering Authority, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Patna, blacklisting the registration of the petitioner/firm for an indefinite period, which vide corrigenda dated July 3, 2023 was altered to blacklisting for five years, to be effected from July 21, 2022, as also the order dated January 19, 2024 passed in appeal by the Chariman-cum-Managing Director of Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, by which, the order passed by the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 3 was modified and the petitioner/firm was blacklisted for three years, but made it operative for other Departments of the Government also.
The review petition of the petitioner/firm filed on February 12, 2024 was also rejected.
The Chief Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation had invited tender for construction and electrification of Police Stations and Out-houses in the District of Gaya, apart from other works. The last date for uploading of the bids was extended from time to time.
One of clauses of the Notice for Inviting Tender (NIT), namely, Clause 35 was that the bid of only such firms would be considered who would upload their experience certificate of carrying out work of the Central Government/State Government/Public Sector Undertakings of similar nature along with proof thereof.
The petitioner/firm along with eight others had submitted their bids for the work in question. The petitioner had submitted his performance/experience certificate along with the tender documents. The certificate was purportedly issued by the Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Vegetable Marketing Federation, Ranchi. 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 April 24, 2023.
When the Corporation found that the certificate of experience enclosed by the petitioner/firm was a forged one, filed a criminal case, registered as Airport P.S. Case No. 106 of 2023, against all the partners of the petitioner/firm along with the power of attorney holder, viz., Deepak Kumar for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court's 13-page long judgment was authored by Justice Kumar on February 27, 2025 in a Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case which challenged the order passed by the Chief Engineer-cum-Registering Authority, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Patna initially blacklisting the the registration of the petitioner/firm for an indefinite period, which was modified through a corrigendum to blacklist the firm for five years.
The firm had also submitted an affidavit along with its bid, stating that all enclosed certificates were true, and that in case of detection of any false information, the competent authority could take legal action, including blacklisting and lodging of an FIR.
Invoking the provisions of the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.06.2023, asking the firm to explain within one week of the receipt of the notice as to why the registration be not suspended and the petitioner/firm be not blacklisted on the charge of forgery, cheating and uploading a forged experience certificate along with the bid documents.
The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs.Tulsi Ram Patel : (1985) 3 SCC 398, which encompasses the complete amplitude of the principle of audi alteram partem, which reads as follows :-
“96. The rule of natural justice with which we are concerned in these appeals and writ petitions, namely, the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence.
The process of a fair hearing need not, however, conform to the judicial process in a court of law, because judicial adjudication of causes involves a number of technical rules of procedure and evidence which are unnecessary and not required for the purpose of a fair hearing within the meaning of audi alteram partem rule in a quasi-judicial or administrative inquiry.”
Notably, the petitioner/firm got an opportunity to explain the evidence against it and represent why it should not be blacklisted, in the appeal.
The judgment reads: "We, even at the cost of repetition, state that there is no statement on behalf of the petitioner/firm that the certificate uploaded by it is not forged."
The High Court also referred to Supreme Court's decisions in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of W.B : (1975) 1 SCC 70; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd.Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. : (2006) 11 SCC 548; Kulja Industries Ltd. Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. :(2014) 14 SCC 731; Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India : (2012) 11 SCC 257 and Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1896.
In a different case, the High Court had delivered its 57-page judgement wherein it quashed the BUIDCo order of blacklisting M/s EMS Infracon Private Limited on March 4, 2021 for one year as per the provisions of Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 for mentioning false facts in its tender documents. The rules were actually formed by the state road construction department with it’s commissioner-cum-secretary as an appellate authority. The court observed that blacklisting a contractor can have more serious consequences than dismissal of an employee for reason that his status may be restored with other consequential benefits if found illegal. Loss incurred by a firm because of the ineligibility after being blacklisted cannot be compensated. It is high time the state considered framing statutory rules in view of laws laid down by the Supreme court on the serious and grave consequences of blacklisting a firm.
No comments:
Post a Comment