Patna HC Upholds Blacklisting Of Construction Firm For Filing Forged Experience Certificate In Public Tender, Calls It 'Serious Matter'

The Patna High Court in a recent judgment said that submitting a forged certificate in a public tender, even if the criminal investigation is pending, is a serious matter that jeopardises the trust of the Corporation.

The Court further held that it is the duty of every Corporation to warn other departments regarding such persons.

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed in its judgment, “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 above ruling was delivered 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 blacklisting was then reduced to three years by the Appellate Authority, and the petitioner-firm was blacklisted for three years, but made it operative for other Departments of the Government also.

The petitioner firm had participated in a tender process conducted by the Chief Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation whereby the tenders were invited for construction and electrification of Police Stations and Out-houses in the District of Gaya, apart from other works. One of clauses of the Notice for Inviting Tender (NIT) 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 submitted a performance/experience certificate purportedly issued by the Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Vegetable Marketing Federation (VEGFED). 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 (VEGFED). On verification of the documents, it was found through a communication that no such performance/experience certificate as was uploaded by the petitioner was ever issued from the office of VEGFED.

A criminal case was then lodged against all the partners of the firm and the power of attorney holder under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

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.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner-firm before the Appellate Authority that the order of blacklisting was beyond jurisdiction in as much as on the day of issuance of the show-cause notice the Chief Engineer had ceased to be the registering authority as the registration of the petitioner-firm had expired. It was further argued that a firm whose registration had already expired could not have been blacklisted for such to be effective.

The Court in its ruling observed that the show-cause notice was sent by speed post at the address provided by the petitioner-firm at the time of its registration, however it was returned by the Postal Department with a note that the address was not correct.

The Court stated, “even if it is assumed that the notice was not served, which is because of the incorrect address provided by the petitioner at the time of registration, the petitioner/firm had every opportunity of defending himself before the Appellant Authority, which, in its wisdom, reduced the period of blacklisting from five years to three years.”

The Court held, “It matters not if the registration of the petitioner/firm has expired. The act of the petitioner/firm in providing misleading information for meeting the qualification threshold, dis-entitles the petitioner/firm from seeking any relief.”

It was also noted by the court that neither in the writ petition nor before the Appellate Authority or the Reviewing Authority, the petitioner-firm has stated about the experience certificate to be genuine.

The Court refused to interfere with the blacklisting, stating, “Considering this aspect of the matter, we do not wish to interfere with the decision of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner/firm for three years.”

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

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

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 35

Click Here To Read Judgement