The Patna High Court has upheld the blacklisting of a Construction Firm for allegedly filing forged Experience Certificate in Public Tender with investigation still pending, calling it a serious matter.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against the order blacklisting the registration of the Petitioner-Firm for three years.

The division bench of 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 Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Umesh Prasad Singh while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Prasoon Sinha.

Facts of the Case

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. One of Clauses of the Notice for Inviting Tender 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.

One of the Partners of the Petitioner- Firm had also filed an affidavit that all the certificates enclosed with the bid are true and that if any wrong information is detected, the competent authority would be at liberty to take legal action, including blacklisting the registration of the firm. Accordingly, a Criminal Case was registered against all the partners of the Petitioner- Firm along with the power of attorney holder for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, the impugned order of blacklisting the Petitioner- Firm, initially for an indefinite period but later modified for a period of three years, was passed.

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 the allegations in the FIR were still pending investigation and the blacklisting order was passed after the bid validity period of the tender process was over, leaving no occasion for the Respondents, in absence of extension of bid validity, to open the bid documents and process the same.

Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset noted that neither in the Writ Petition nor before the Appellate Authority or the Reviewing Authority, the Petitioner-Firm stated about the experience certificate to be genuine

It further noted that the communication made by the Managing Director of VEGFED clearly demonstrates that the certificate of experience uploaded by the Petitioner-Firm was never issued by the VEGFED, prima facie, proving that a misleading document was uploaded by the Petitioner.

The Court was of the view that even with investigation still pending, the matter is a serious one.

"In the case of the petitioner/firm, 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. 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," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

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

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Umesh Prasad Singh, Advocate Sanjeet Kumar

Respondent- Senior Advocate Prasoon Sinha, Advocate Prabhat Kumar

Click here to read/ download Order





Patna High CourtACJ Ashutosh KumarJustice Partha Sarthy

Sheetal Joon