As per case facts, petitioners, successful bidders for tender works, had their contracts terminated and were blacklisted for three years based on an alleged fake experience certificate from Respondent No.6. ...
1
2026:CGHC:10481-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 839 of 2026
1 - M/s A.K. Construction Opp. 6th Floor, 30/602, Ashok Ratan Shankar
Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G. Through Its Partner Shri Ajeet Kumar, S/o
Shir Balram Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Gram Bihat Ward No. 29, Thana
Barauni Begusarai, Bihar 851135.
2 - Shri Ajeet Kumar S/o Shri Balram Singh Aged About 48 Years Partner M/s
A.K. Construction, R/o Gram Bihat Ward No. 29, Thana Barauni Begusarai,
Bihar 851135.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
C.G.
2 - The Member Secretary, State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
3 - The Mission Director, Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
4 - The Collector-Cum-President, Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Surajpur,
District Surajpur C.G.
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary, District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Surajpur, District
Surajpur C.G.
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe, Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati,
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Pune (Maharashtra) 411009
--- Respondent(s)
2
WPC No. 778 of 2026
1 - M/s A.K. Construction Opp. 6th Floor, 30/602, Ashok Ratan Shankar
Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Partner Shri Ajeet
Kumar, S/o Shri Balram Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Gram Bihat Ward
No. 29, Thana Barauni Begusarai, Bihar 851135
2 - Shri Ajeet Kumar S/o Shri Balram Singh Aged About 48 Years Partner M/s
A.K. Construction, R/o Gram Bihat Ward No. 29, Thana Barauni Begusarai,
Bihar 851135
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Member Secretary State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - The Collector-Cum-President Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Surajpur,
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Surajpur, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati,
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Pune Maharashtra 411009
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 822 of 2026
1 - M/s A.K. Construction Opp. 6th Floor, 30/602, Ashok Ratan Shankar
Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Partner Shri Ajeet Kumar, S/o
Shri Balram Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Gram Bihat Ward No. 29, Thana
Barauni Begusarai, Bihar 851135.
2 - Shri Ajeet Kumar, S/o Shri Balram Singh, Aged About 48 Years Partner
M/s A.K. Construction, R/o Gram Bihat Ward No. 29, Thana Barauni
Begusarai, Bihar 851135
---Petitioner(s)
3
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
C.G.
2 - The Member Secretary, State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
3 - The Mission Director, Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
4 - The Collector-Cum-President, Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Surajpur,
District Surajpur C.G.
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary, District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Surajpur, District
Surajpur C.G.
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe, Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Puna (Maharashtra) 411009.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 824 of 2026
M/s Anand Consultants Opp. Primary School, Ground Floor, Door No. 4016,
Ward No. 51, Suraj Nagar, Labhandih, Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Proprietor
Shri Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Son Of Shri Anand Bihari Shrivastava, Aged
About 53 Years, Resident Of 157-C, Patliputra Colony, Patna, (Bihar) 800013.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Member Secretary State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - The Collector-Cum-President Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Surajpur,
District- Surajpur (C.G.)
4
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Surajpur, District-
Surajpur (C.G.)
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati,
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Pune (Maharashtra) 411009.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 825 of 2026
1 - M/s Vikram Teleinfra Private Limited, Near Sadu School, L I G 998,
Housing Board Colony, Saddu, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Through Its
Director Shri Vijay Kumar Ratanchand Javeri, Aged About 53 Years, R/o A-
704, Part Titanium, Park Street, Pune City, Maharashtra- 411057.
2 - Shri Vijay Kumar Ratanchand Javeri S/o Mr. Ratanchand Sardarmal Javeri
Aged About 53 Years Director Of Vikra Teleinfra Private Ltd., R/o A-704, Part
Titanium, Park Street, Pune City, Maharashtra- 411057.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
C.G.
2 - The Member Secretary, State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
3 - The Mission Director, Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering,
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
4 - The Collector-Cum-President, Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Koriya
(Baikunthpur), District Koriya C.G.
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary, District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Koria (Baikunthpur),
District Koria C.G.
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe, Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Pune (Maharashtra) 411009.
--- Respondent(s)
5
WPC No. 826 of 2026
1 - M/s Vikram Teleinfra Private Limited Near Sadu School, Lig 998, Housing
Board Colony, Saddu, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. Through Its Director Shri
Vijay Kumar Ratanchand Javeri, Aged About 53 Years, R/o A-704, Part
Titanium, Park Street, Pune City, Maharashtra 411057.
2 - Shri Vijay Kumar Taranchand Sardarmal Javeri Aged About 53 Years,
Director Of Vikra Teleinfra Private Ltd. R/o A-704, Part Titanium, Park Street,
Pune City, Maharashtra 411057.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Member Secretary State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Collector Cum President Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Koria (Baikunthpur),
Distt. Koria, Chhattisgarh.
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati,
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Pune, Maharashtra, 411009.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 860 of 2026
M/s Shree Ganpati Construction A Proprietary Concern Lig- 524, Sector -5
Housing Board Sardhoo Raipur District- Raipur, (C.G.) Through Its Proprietor
Shri Vivek Yadav Son Of Shri Rajendra Yadav Aged About 39 Years Resident
Of Vardhman Nagar B. Heerapur Ajmer Road Jaipur District- Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
6
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary Public Health Engineering
Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex Nawa Raipur District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Member Secretary State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee) Public Health Engineering Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan Capital
Complex Nawa Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission Public Health Engineering
Department Neer Bhawan Civil Lines Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - The Collector Cum President Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission Koriya
(Baikunthpur) District- Koriya (C.G.)
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District- Water And
Sanitation Mission Public Health Engineering Division Koriya (Baikunthpur)
District- Koriya (C.G.)
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38 Mitra Mandal Colony Parvati Near
Rajmahal Hotel Pune (Maharashtra ) 411009
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 878 of 2026
1 - Vikram Teleinfra Private Limited Near Sadu School, Lig 998, Housing
Board Colony, Saddu, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Director Shri
Vijay Kumar Ratanchand Javeri, Aged About 53 Years, R/o A-704, Part
Titanium, Park Street, Pune City, Maharashtra- 411057
2 - Shri Vijay Kumar Ratanchand S/o Mr. Ratanchand Sardarmal Javeri Aged
About 53 Years Director Of Vikra Teleinfra Private Ltd., Resident Of A- 704,
Part Titanium, Park Street, Pune City, Maharashtra 411057
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Member Secretary State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4 - The Collector- Cum- President Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, District
Surajpur (C.G.)
7
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering, Division, District Surajpur (C.G.)
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati,
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Pune (Maharashtra) 411009
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 881 of 2026
1 - M/s Somvanshi Enviro Engg. Private Limited J-78, Patel Nagar, 1st And
2nd Floor, Gaziyabad (U.P.) Through Its Authorized Person/ Director Shri
Mahipat Singh, S/o Shri Bhagirati Singh
2 - Shri Mahipat Singh S/o Shri Bhagirati Singh Aged About 52 Years Director
Of M/s Somvanshi Enviro Engg. Private Limited, J-78, Patel Nagar, 1st And
2nd Floor, Gaziyabad U.P. R/o J-78, Patel Nagar, 2nd Floor, Gaziyabad U.P.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Member Secretary State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - The Collector-Cum-President Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Surajpur,
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Surajpur, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati,
Near Rajmahala Hotel, Pune Maharashtra 411009
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 883 of 2026
M/s Dharmesh Kumar A Proprietary Concern, Through Its Proprietor Shri
Dharmesh Kumar, Son Of Shri Rajendra Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
8
Food Villa Restaurant, 3rd Floor, 30/304 Ashoka Ratan, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Member Secretary State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4 - The Collector-Cum-President Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Koriya
(Baikunthpur) District Koriya (C.G.)
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Koriya, (Baikunthpur)
District Koriya (C.G.)
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati,
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Pune (Maharashtra) 411009
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 884 of 2026
M/s Anand Consultants, Opp. Primary School, Ground Floor, Door No. 4016,
Ward No. 51 Suraj Nagar, Labhandih, Raipur C.G. Through Its Proprietor Shri
Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Son Of Shri Anand Bihari Srivastava , Aged About
53 Years, R/o 157-C, Patliputra Colony, Patna (Bihar) 800013.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering,
Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Member Secretary State Water And Sanitation Mission (Apex
Committee), Public Health Engineering, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Public Health Engineering
Department, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
9
4 - The Collector-Cum-President Zila Jal Evam Swachhata Mission, Koriya,
District Koriya Chhattisgarh
5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And
Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, Koriya, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh
6 - M/s Vijay V Salunkhe Through Proprietor Shri Vijay Vasant Salunkhe,
Registered Office At Mangla Sr. No. 484/38, Mitra Mandal Colony, Parvati,
Near Rajmahal Hotel, Pune Maharashtra 411009
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. B.P.Sharma, Mr. Raza Ali and Mr.
Saurabh Choudhary, Advocates.
For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 / State:Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate
General
For Respondent(s) No. 6 :None
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
28/02/2026
1.Heard Mr. B.P.Sharma, Mr. Raza Ali, and Mr. Saurabh Chaudhary,
learned counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents.
2.The petitioner(s), by way of these petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, have prayed for the following relief(s):
WPC No. 839/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for the records of the case pertaining the petitioners' case
from the respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
10
the facts and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioners vide letters dated
2.1.2026 & 28.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order
dated 20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-
4), which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also
of blacklisting the petitioner firm for a period of three years in respect
of all future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioners
be allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by
and between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question
after quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and not
sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to respondent
authorities to make payment of work completed within the time
allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing reasonable time
for completion of balance work and payment thereof with such
enhancement as permissible under the law, in the interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the NIT No.332 Dated 29.01.2026 / SYS No.184608/1st
Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk and cost of
petitioners being arbitrary and in violation of petitioners' illegal
fundamental, constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 778/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for the records of the case pertaining the petitioners' case
from the respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioners vide letters dated
2.1.2026 & 28.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order
dated 20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-
4), which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also
11
of blacklisting the petitioner firm for a period of three years in respect
of all future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioners
be allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by
and between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question
after quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and not
sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to respondent
authorities to make payment of work completed within the time
allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing reasonable time
for completion of balance work and payment thereof with such
enhancement as permissible under the law, in the interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the NIT No.333 dated 29.1.2026 (Annexure P-13) for
balance work at the risk and cost of petitioners being arbitrary, illegal
and in violation petitioners' of fundamental, constitutional and other
rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 822/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for the records of the case pertaining the petitioners' case
from the respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioners vide letters dated
2.1.2026 & 28.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order
dated 20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-
4), which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also
of blacklisting the petitioner firm for a period of three years in respect
of all future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioners
be allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by
and between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question
after quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and not
sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to respondent
authorities to make payment of work completed within the time
12
allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing reasonable time
for completion of balance work and payment thereof with such
enhancement as permissible under the law, in the interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the NIT No.335 Dated 02.02.2026 / SYS No.184762/1st
Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk and cost of
petitioners being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of petitioners'
fundamental, constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 824/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for records from the pertaining to petitioner's case from the
respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioner vide letters dated
2.1.2026 & 28.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order
dated 20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-
4), which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also
of blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years in respect of
all future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioner be
allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by and
between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question after
quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and not
sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to respondent
authorities to make payment of work completed within the time
allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing reasonable time
for completion of balance work and payment thereof with such
enhancement as permissible under the law, in the interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the NIT No.336 Dated 02.02.2026 / SYS No. 184763/1st
Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk and cost of
petitioners being arbitrary, of petitioners' illegal fundamental,
13
constitutional and other rights. and in violation
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 825/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for the records of the case pertaining the petitioners' case
from the respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioners vide letters dated
2.1.2026 & 28.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order
dated 20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-
4), which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also
of blacklisting the petitioner firm for a period of three years in respect
of all future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioners
be allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by
and between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question
after quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and
not sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to
respondent authorities to make payment of work completed within
the time allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing
reasonable time for completion of balance work and payment
thereof with such enhancement as permissible under the law, in the
interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the NIT No.327 Dated 29.01.2026 / SYS No.184601/1st
Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk and cost of
petitioners being arbitrary, illegal and violation in of petitioners'
fundamental, constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
14
WPC No. 826/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for the records of the case pertaining the petitioners' case
from the respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioners vide letters dated
2.1.2026 & 28.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order
dated 20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-
4), which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also
of blacklisting the petitioner firm for a period of three years in respect
of all future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioners
be allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by
and between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question
after quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and
not sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to
respondent authorities to make payment of work completed within
the time allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing
reasonable time for completion of balance work and payment
thereof with such enhancement as permissible under the law, in the
interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the NIT No.328 Dated 29.01.2026 / SYS No. 184603/1st
Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk and cost of
petitioners being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of petitioners'
fundamental, constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 860/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for records pertaining to petitioner's case from the
respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
and circumstances of case.
15
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioner vide letter dated
12.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order dated
20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-4),
which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also of
blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years in respect of all
future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioner be
allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by and
between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question after
quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and not
sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to respondent
authorities to make payment of work completed within the time
allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing reasonable time
for completion of balance work and payment thereof with such
enhancement as permissible under law, in the interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the vide NIT No.329 Dated 29.01.2026 / SYS No.
184604/1st Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk and
cost of petitioners being arbitrary, of petitioners' illegal and in
violation fundamental, constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 878/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for the records of the case pertaining the petitioners' case
from the respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioners vide letters dated
2.1.2026 & 28.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order
dated 20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-
4), which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also
of blacklisting the petitioner firm for a period of three years in respect
16
of all future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioners
be allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by
and between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question
after quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and
not sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to
respondent authorities to make payment of work completed within
the time allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing
reasonable time for completion of balance work and payment
thereof with such enhancement as permissible under the law, in the
interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the NIT No.334 Dated 29.01.2026 / SYS No. 184610/1st
Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk and cost of
petitioners being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of petitioners
fundamental, constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 881/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for the records of the case pertaining the petitioners' case
from the respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioners vide letters dated
2.1.2026 & 28.1.2026 (Annexure P-11), of maintaining the order
dated 20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-
3), which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also
of blacklisting the petitioner firm for a period of three years in respect
of all future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioners
be allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by
and between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question
after quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and
not sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to
respondent authorities to make payment of work completed within
17
the time allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing
reasonable time for completion of balance work and payment
thereof with such enhancement as permissible under the law, in the
interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the NIT No.337 Dated 2.2.2026 / SYS No.184764/1st Call
(Annexure P-12) for balance work at the risk and cost of petitioners
being arbitrary, and in violation of petitioners' fundamental,
constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 883/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the to nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for records pertaining petitioner's case from the respondent
concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioner vide letter dated
12.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order dated
20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-4),
which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also of
blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years in respect of all
future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioner be
allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by and
between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question after
quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and not
sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to respondent
authorities to make payment of work completed within the time
allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing reasonable time
for completion of balance work and payment thereof with such
enhancement as permissible under law, in the interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the vide NIT No.330 Dated 29.01.2026 / SYS
No.184605/1st Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk
18
and cost of petitioners being arbitrary, petitioners' illegal and in of
violation fundamental, constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
WPC No. 884/2026
A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue
calling for records pertaining to petitioner's case from the
respondent concerned if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
and circumstances of case.
B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the decision of respondent authorities taken in its meeting
dated 02.12.2025, communicated to petitioner vide letter dated
12.1.2026 (Annexure P-12), of maintaining the order dated
20.12.2024 attached with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-4),
which has already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court, and also of
blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years in respect of all
future works of respondent authorities and in effect petitioner be
allowed to complete the work under the agreement executed by and
between the parties by giving life to the agreement in question after
quashing the impugned decision, being arbitrary, illegal and not
sustainable in law and a specific direction be issued to respondent
authorities to make payment of work completed within the time
allowed by this Hon'ble Court and further allowing reasonable time
for completion of balance work and payment thereof with such
enhancement as permissible under law, in the interest of justice.
C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writs do issue
quashing the vide NIT No.331 Dated 29.01.2026 / SYS No.184607/
1st Call (Annexure P-13) for balance work at the risk and cost of
petitioners being arbitrary, illegal and in of violation petitioners'
fundamental, constitutional and other rights.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts
& circumstances of case.
E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.
3.Since the facts and issues involved in these cases are similar, they are
19
being considered and decided by this common judgment and WPC No.
778/2026 is taken as the lead case.
4.The facts, as projected by the petitioners in WPC No. 778/2026, are that
The petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No.2 is one of the
partners of petitioner No.1. Pursuant to issuance of Notice Inviting
Tender No.251, S.No. 139106 dated 21.6.2023 by respondent No.4, the
petitioners submitted his bid along with necessary documents including
experience certificate of respondent No.6-M/s Vijay V Salunke of Pune
(MS), who is associated with petitioners under a joint venture agreement
and is having experience of particularly type of tender work i.e. nature of
present tender regarding which disputes and differences have arisen by
and between the parties. Petitioners came out as successful bidder in
the tender process and accordingly, agreement was entered into
between the parties and a work order in respect of aforementioned NIT
has been issued in favour of the petitioners. After issuance of work
order, it was said by respondent authorities that respondent. No.6 had
no such experience or eligibility and since the petitioners have submitted
experience certificate of said person, therefore, not only his tender was
liable to be cancelled but security amount was liable to be forfeited and
further action as stated in show cause notice dated 3.9.2024 may be
taken. On receipt of show cause notice, petitioners submitted reply and
denied each and every adverse allegation made in the show cause
notice along with supporting documents. After submission of reply, the
petitioners came to know that respondent No.2 in its meeting dated
20.12.2024 under Agenda No.13, has issued direction to the authorities
dealing with show-cause notice issued to connection with experience
certificate of respondent No.6 M/s Vijay V Salunke filed by petitioners
along with tender documents.
20
5.Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that from
perusal of directions issued under Agenda No. 13, it is clear that
respondent No.1 has already directed to the authorities below that in
cases wherever the certificate relating to respondent No.6 is submitted,
the process has to be drawn in a particular manner and the tenders
submitted have to be cancelled regarding which recommendation have
been made under Agenda No.13 and further direction has been issued
that in respect of tenders regarding which work order has been issued
after acceptance of bid, the same shall not only be cancelled but the
persons concerned be also held responsible for penal action.
Surprisingly, a direction has also been issued by the office of respondent
No.3-Mission Director vide letter dated 20.2.2025 to the authority
concerned who is holding the charge of conducting the inquiry against
the tenderers to act in a particular manner and since the averments
made in letter dated 20.2.2025 in which direction has been issued to the
authorities dealing with the show-cause notice is the fulcrum of the
matter or in other words, the superior authority has already directed the
authority dealing with show cause notice to act in a particular manner.
Apprehending action on the part of respondent authorities in a prejudice
manner and further that providing opportunity of hearing would only be
an eyewash, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court
bearing WPC No. 1263/2025 and the said petition was decided in favour
of petitioner vide order dated 7.3.2025. After the order passed by this
Hon'ble Court, the respondent authorities were in catch-22 situation and
they have avoided compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court
in all possible manner, firstly an appeal being WA No.651/2025 was filed
before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 07.03.2025 which also
stood dismissed vide judgment dated 15.09.2025.
21
6.According to Mr. Sharma, the petitioners have also filed contempt
petition before this Hon'ble Court since for quite long time the
respondent authorities have not complied the order passed by the
Hon'ble writ Court and adopted delaying tactics i.e. at one hand not
allowing the petitioners to complete the work and making payment of
work completed, and at the same time, not providing opportunity of
hearing in respect of contemplated action. The respondent authorities
filed a review petition bearing REVP No. 393/2025 before this Hon'ble
Court and in which the order passed in writ petition has been modified to
some extent and all other part of the order has been allowed to stand
unaltered vide order dated 27.11.2025. The petitioners were in receipt of
notice of hearing dated 21.11.2025 to appear on 27.11.2025 at 3:00
p.m. in Raipur in the office of Chief Secretary and petitioner No.2
appeared before the authority concerned after obtaining gate pass for
appearing for the purpose of hearing. However, on that day no hearing
could take place although as a matter abundant caution at the instance
of respondent authorities and at their dictates, the petitioners submitted
letter/representation dated 28.11.2025 on assurance being given that
petitioners will be allowed to complete the work in question.
7.Mr. Sharma submits that the Apex Committee of respondent-Mission in
its meeting dated 02.12.2025 under Agenda No. 1, has resolved to
maintain the decision dated 20.12.2024, annexed with letter dated
17.2.2025 (Annexure P-4), which was already quashed by this Hon'ble
Court, terminated the agreement in question under which the work in
question is allotted to the petitioners and further, the petitioners have
been blacklisted for a period of three years, in respect of all construction
works of respondent Department. The aforesaid decision dated
02.12.2025 of the apex committee, communicated to petitioner vide
22
letter dated 2:1-2026 and 28.1.2026, is under challenge, which itself
speaks volume about the arbitrariness on the part of respondent
authorities and in which the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court have
been utterly disregarded. After the impugned order, as stated above,
and ignoring petitioners' most reasonable request of completion of work
on making payment of work already performed by petitioners, the
respondent authorities have since working in prejudicial manner as
detailed above, invited tender No.333 dated 29.1.2026 for the balance
work under risk and cost of petitioners herein and since such action is
also arbitrary, illegal and affecting the petitioners' right under the
agreement arrived at by and between the parties, despite there
undertaking of completion of balance work, which is about 30% of work,
as 70% has already been completed and noted by this Hon'ble Court
also in its order passed in review petition filed by respondent State, Mr.
Sharma submits that the NIT suffers from malice in law and malice in
fact apart from in violation of constitutional, fundamental and other rights
of petitioners. Mr. Sharma further submits that in light of the well settled
proposition of law by the Apex Court in the matter of Gorkha Security
Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2014) 9 SCC
105, and UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India,
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551, the petitioners cannot be blacklisted.
8.Mr. Sharma further submits that in decision dated 2.12.2025, which is
annexed along with letter dated 17.2.2025 (Annexure P-4), the
respondent authority concerned has already taken a decision of not
making any payment although stated that extent of work completed by
petitioners be assessed but no payment be made and further a decision
is taken that for completion of work, tenders are to be invited at the risk
and cost of the tenderers and in the present case, at the risk and cost of
23
present petitioners. The respondents have inflicted punishment which
comes within the purview of double jeopardy. At one hand, respondent
authorities are themselves saying that part of work has been completed
and remaining work is to be completed through other tenderer and for
which assessment has to be made but no payment will be made to the
tenderers like petitioners and balance work will be completed at the cost
of petitioners. The action of not allowing the petitioners to complete
remaining about 30% of work and further not making payment of about
70% work completed, without there being any fault on their part, as it
cannot be said that other persons who joined or submitted experience
certificate has not undertaken the same work and provided the
petitioners a false certificate. In this regard also, no inquiry has been
held and petitioners have not been communicated with any such
document which show any fraud or forgery on the part of any person
whosoever much private respondent herein. Mr. Sharma submits that
the respondent No.6 against whom under Crime No.85/2025, offence
under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC has been registered, and in
which in case diary there exists two documents, one to the effect that
respondent No.6 has completed the work and valid certificate of
experience has been issued and at other place, it has been mentioned in
communication that no such experience certificate has been
issued.There exists element of doubt in respect of experience certificate
and it cannot be out-rightly said that experience certificate submitted
with the authorities is not given true impression for the work completed
by respondent No.5 and valid issuance of certificate. The respondent
authorities are working in the manner which comes within the purview of
caprice and unreasonableness which is ante thesis to Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, is writ large on the face of record. In this view of the
24
matter, there is need of interference by this Hon'ble Court. In respect of
submission of false experience certificate in tenders process with
different Departments of the State, some were treated as forged
certificates and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, in
tenders an amendment has been incorporation in relevant Form and in
case of prevailing provision, amended provision has been inserted. From
perusal of the amended provision, it would be clear that respondent
authorities have already taken a decision that if experience certificate
etc. is found to be misleading, incorrect, false etc. then EMD for tender
shall be forfeited and pre-qualification certificate shall be cancelled for
one year but agreement shall not be revoked. One State authority cannot
adopted two different views in their two different Departments and
applying the analogy as stated above, it is submitted that in the case of
petitioners, agreement ought not to have been revoked and in effect the
petitioners were to be allowed to complete remaining work and payment
thereof. The petitioners, at this juncture. reiterate that petitioners are
ready to complete the balance work within the reasonable time allowed
by respondent authorities or by this Hon'ble Court on receipt of the
payment of completed work and after completion of remaining work
balance payment thereof.
9.Mr. Sharma lastly submits that the petitioners have no other remedy
except to approach this Hon'ble Court as in the NIT itself Clause 19,
which deals with resolution of dispute, this Hon'ble Court has exclusive
jurisdiction. The petitioners are entitled for all the relief claimed from this
Hon'ble Court.
10.On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Das, placing reliance on the return filed,
submits that the petitioners participated in the tender process and, in
25
order to qualify in the technical bid, submitted certain documents
including a technical experience certificate. Upon evaluation of the bids,
the petitioners were found to be technically qualified and consequently
participated in the financial bid. Thereafter, the petitioners were declared
as the successful bidder and, pursuant thereto, an agreement was duly
executed in favour of the petitioner for execution of the work assigned
under the contract. Upon verification from the authority purported to have
issued the experience certificate, namely Respondent No. 6, it was
found that the said authority had never issued such a certificate. It is a
matter of record that certain works were earlier executed between the
petitioners and Respondent No. 6 by way of a joint venture. The
petitioners, however, relied upon a technical experience certificate
allegedly issued by Respondent No. 6, M/s Vijay V. Salunkhe, and
submitted the same in the tender process to qualify in the technical bid;
nevertheless, verification from Respondent No. 6 revealed that no such
certificate had in fact been issued by the said authority. The petitioners
qualified the first stage of the tender process, i.e., the technical bid, on
the basis of a document which, upon verification, was found not to be
genuine but fake and fabricated. The said fact stood duly established by
the concerned authority which was purported to have issued the
certificate, namely the Municipal Corporation, Karad, District Satara,
Maharashtra. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners used a false
and fake experience certificate to qualify in the technical bid and thereby
secured the contract. It is a matter of record that in the instant petition,
the petitioners have nowhere pleaded that the experience certificates
relied upon by him are genuine or that the department has erroneously
taken action by cancelling the tender and taking consequential
decisions. In the light of the absence of any such averment in the present
26
petition as well as in the earlier round of writ proceedings registered as
W.P.(C) No. 1263/2025, which came to be decided by the Hon'ble Court
vide order dated 07.03.2025, it can safely be inferred that the petitioners
had relied upon fake certificates to qualify in the tender process and
ultimately succeeded in obtaining the contract. Such conduct on the part
of the petitioners clearly justifies the action taken by the respondents,
including cancellation of the tender and subsequent blacklisting. Upon
detection of the use of fake experience certificates by the petitioners,
appropriate proceedings were initiated and show-cause notices were
issued not only to the petitioners but also to other contractors who were
found to be involved in similar misconduct. The said show-cause notices
came to be challenged before the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that
the Department had already formed a predetermined opinion to take
action against the petitioners and other similarly placed persons.
Consequently, the Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 07.03.2025, was
pleased to dispose of the writ petition and quash the show-cause
notices. However, while doing so, the Hon'ble Court granted liberty to
the State to take a fresh decision on its own merits after following due
process of law. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Court did not
express any opinion on the merits of the allegations involved in the
matter. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Court, which was
subsequently modified to a limited extent in Review Petition No. 393 of
2025, liberty was granted to the Apex Committee of the State Level
Water and Sanitation Mission to consider the matter and proceed in
accordance with law. In furtherance thereof, a letter dated 21.11.2025
(Annexure P-10) was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to
appear in person before the Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Department, Raipur on 27.11.2025 at 3:00 p.m. for personal hearing.
27
The petitioners appeared on 28.11.2025 and submitted their reply. In the
entire representation submitted by the petitioners, there is not even a
whisper of any averment that the documents submitted by him were
genuine or that they were wrongly treated as fake and forged. On the
contrary, the representation largely proceeds on the plea that the
petitioners acted in good faith and requested that he be permitted to
complete the remaining work and that the outstanding payments be
verified and released, which aspect was examined by the Department.
The petitioner's representation was duly considered by the Committee
convened on 02.12.2025. The minutes of the meeting dated 02.12.2025
clearly establish that, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Court
passed in W.P.(C) No. 1263 of 2025 and connected batch matters,
opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to all contractors, including
the petitioners. It has been recorded that the contractors submitted their
written as well as oral submissions on 28.11.2025; however, no new
facts were brought on record in their representations. The petitioners
were afforded full opportunity of hearing/personal hearing by the
respondents. However, the petitioners have not denied that the
certificates were not fake. Hence, it cannot be inferred that no
opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners. The minutes
further record a categorical observation that the contractors admitted
that the documents submitted by them were fake and that they had also
lodged reports before the concerned police station in that regard. Upon
consideration of the material available on record, the Committee
concluded that submission of fake documents had vitiated the entire
tender process, as the tenderers stood disqualified on account of the
said misconduct. The Committee also held that, the decision taken was
duly justified and it upheld its earlier order/decision dated 20/12/2024
28
and decided to blacklist the contracts for a period of three years.
11.Mr. Das further submits that a show-cause notice dated 03.09.2024 was
issued to the petitioners, clearly stating that he had submitted an
experience certificate purportedly issued by the concerned officer of the
Municipal Corporation, Karad, District Satara, Maharashtra. The
petitioners were specifically informed that the said certificates had been
forwarded to the issuing authority for verification and confirmation
regarding their genuineness. It was further intimated to the petitioners in
the said notice that the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation,
Karad, vide email dated 06.07.2024, had confirmed that the certificates
purportedly issued on 25.06.2020 had not in fact been issued by the said
authority. In view of the tender conditions which specifically prohibit
submission of false and fabricated documents, the petitioners were
called upon to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings should
not be initiated against them, including the action of blacklisting for a
period of three years. The petitioners were fully aware of the issuance of
the aforesaid show-cause notice and duly responded to the same by
submitting a reply dated 18.09.2024, wherein the petitioners primarily
requested that no coercive action be taken against him, including
termination of the contract or debarring/blacklisting for a period of three
years. Apart from a bald assertion that the fake experience certificate
purportedly issued by respondent No. 6 was not prepared at the behest
of the petitioners, and a request that no adverse action be taken against
them, the petitioners did not raise any contention that the show-cause
notice suffered from illegality, arbitrariness or violation of principles of
natural justice. The show-cause notice came to be issued only after the
facts regarding submission of fake experience certificates surfaced and
were duly confirmed by the competent authority, namely the Municipal
29
Corporation, Karad, District Satara, Maharashtra. The tender document
specifically contains a stipulation providing for action in cases where a
bidder is found to have played fraud upon the department by submitting
false or fabricated documents, which stipulation has been categorically
reproduced in the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice also
records that the petitioners had furnished an undertaking declaring that
all documents submitted by them were true and correct and that no
material fact had been concealed. It was further stated in the said
undertaking that the petitioners would be solely responsible in the event
any submission was found to be fake or false and that necessary action,
in accordance with the tender conditions, could be taken against them.
12.Mr. Das further submits that the contention of the petitioners that it has
completed the substantial/last portion of the work is vague, misleading
and factually incorrect. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner
was called for the purpose of conducting measurement of the work
executed by him vide intimation dated 15.01.2025. Pursuant to the said
intimation, the petitioners did not appear and the work executed by them
was duly measured, examined and evaluated by the competent
authorities. Upon such verification, it was found that in respect of the
Dugga Batra Multi-Village Water Supply Scheme, the petitioner had
completed only about 2.5% of the work assigned to it and was paid Rs.
18,25,762/- on 30.03.2024. His incomplete final bill was calculated as
Rs. 54,64,650/-. Hence, the averment made in the writ petition that the
petitioners have completed a substantial portion of the work,
approximately 70%, is vague, baseless and contrary to the factual
record. It is further submitted that after due computation of the amount
payable to the petitioner in terms of the agreement, necessary steps
shall be taken by the department to process and release payment for the
30
work actually executed by the petitioner, in accordance with law and the
terms of the contract. In the given circumstances, respondents have
issued NIT for completion of balance work.
13.Mr. Das next submits that the agreement executed between the
petitionesr and the respondent authorities contains an arbitration/dispute
resolution clause, namely Clause 29, which provides that any dispute
arising out of or relating to the contract is to be referred to the
Superintending Engineer in the manner prescribed therein for
adjudication and redressal. The petitioners have an alternative and
efficacious remedy available under the said Clause 29 to agitate their
grievances relating to the contract, including issues concerning
execution of work, measurement, bills and payments. In view of the
availability of such alternate remedy, the present writ petition, insofar as
it pertains to contractual disputes, is not maintainable and deserves to
be dismissed on this ground alone. The present case pertains to
submission of fake documents by the petitioner not only in the instant
contract but also for obtaining several other contracts. It is submitted
that, in all, the petitioner secured as many as five contracts on the
strength of fake documents, which enabled him to qualify in the technical
bid by projecting false technical experience. It is a settled principle of law
that an act of fraud or cheating vitiates all subsequent proceedings.
Once it is established that the petitioners secured the contract on the
basis of false and fabricated documents, the petitioners cannot claim
any equity, protection or immunity in the matter. Accordingly, the
respondents have rightly terminated the contract issued to the petitioner,
as the entire tender process stood vitiated on account of the petitioners'
fraudulent conduct, rendering the continuation of the contract legally
unsustainable. The authorities initiated action only after the documents
31
submitted by the petitioners were forwarded to the competent authority,
which was purported to have issued the certification, for verification and
confirmation. Upon receipt of the report from the Municipal Corporation,
Karad, confirming that the certificates were not issued by it, the
competent authority rightly proceeded to take appropriate action strictly
in accordance with law and the tender conditions.
14.Mr. Das, lastly submits that although separate returns have not been
filed in the remaining writ petitions specifically traversing the pleadings
therein, the facts and issues involved in all the petitions being similar, the
return filed by the State in WPC No. 778/2026 would suffice and the
same be treated as the return in the connected matters as well, and all
these petitions be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
15.Mr. Sharma, placing reliance on the rejoinder filed, submits that in the
return filed by respondent No.1 to 3- State authorities, there is nothing
against petitioners and in such circumstances, when the respondent
authorities have failed to state any substantial ground by which relief
claimed by petitioners can be denied and for this reason, the petitioners
say and submit that their writ petition deserve to be allowed. The entire
return revolves around only one aspect of the matter i.e. alleged use of
fake experience certificate of respondent No.6-Vijay V Salunke, by the
petitioners and averment has been made in this regard in various paras
are sheet anchor of defence of respondents. Mr. Sharma submits that
the respondents in their return further state about the reply of petitioners
herein "that the fake experience certificate purportedly issued by
respondent No.6 was not prepared at the behest of petitioners and
requested that no adverse action be take against them". This fact
speaks volume about the contention of the petitioners that they have
32
relied upon the certificate and submitted the same along with tender and
there is no reason not to rely upon the certificate prima facie appears to
be issued by respondent authority i.e. Municipal Corporation Karad
District Satara (Maharashtra). Regarding this aspect of the matter, if the
averments made by the petitioners herein in writ petition are perused
particularly averments made in Para 8.20, it would be clear to this
Hon'ble Court that the contention raised by petitioners has substance
that certificate produced along with tender is or may be a genuine
certificate as the criminal court concerned has found that there exists
two contradictory information regarding experience certificate and in this
view of the matter only, the Court concerned has reached to the
conclusion that there exists a doubt in respect of alleged production of
fake certificate and the Court itself has extended benefits of pre-arrest
bail to respondent Vijay V Salunke. This fact speaks volume about
fairness on the part of petitioners herein. Keeping in juxtapose Annexure
R-1 (Page No.11 of return) and Annexure P-14 (Page 110 of petition) it
is clear that there exists doubt in respect of genuineness of experience
certificate or in other words, when there exists two contradictory
information in record, one supporting case of petitioners, it cannot be
said that petitioners have acted in the manner which entitles the
respondent authorities to take an action of inflicting penalty of civil death
by blacklisting petitioners for a period of three years and also terminating
the contract entered into between the parties, particularly in respect of
technical work relating to which petitioners have joined hands with
respondent No.6 in order to obtain and complete the work of design,
drawing, construction, testing and commissioning of collecting well etc.
The respondent authorities in their return have stated that in tender
document there exists a stipulation providing for action in case where
33
the bidder is found played fraud upon the Department by submitting
false and fabricated documents. Mr. Sharma submits that the averments
made herein above about two contradictory information, one has been
relied upon by respondent authorities in order to blacklist and terminate
the contract, but there exists yet genuineness regarding another
information experience certificate and benefit flowing from that certificate
has not been extended for the reason best known to the State
authorities. The petitioners are further fortified in submitting before this
Hon'ble Court that genuine certificate has been submitted about
experience of M/s Vijay V Salunke (respondent No.6) and it appears that
respondent authorities are suppressing the fact of receipt of the letter
dated 17.10.2024 by which in categorical terms the office of Municipal
Council Karad has given seal of approval to the experience certificate
issued to respondent No.6 vide letter dated 17.10.2024. When the case
of respondents itself exists in doll drums, it cannot be said that
respondent authorities have acted in a reasonable manner and may be
permitted to act in the matter as pleaded by petitioners in their petition
with arbitrariness and in violation of petitioners' fundamental and
constitutional rights. The respondent authorities have invited tender on
risk and cost basis for completion of balance work, valued the same at
Rs.2067.90 Lakhs as on 29.1.2026 and in respect of work allotted to the
petitioners about three years back, probable value of tender was
Rs.2114.23 Lakhs and this fact itself prove the fact that petitioner has
completed major part of the work and therefore even after three years
the value of work comes to Rs.2067.90 Lakhs. Thus, there is some
substance in averments made by the petitioners about their completion
of work to a large extent. After dealing with sheet anchor of defence of
respondent authorities about alleged fake and forged certificate and
34
bringing on record evidence of sterling character i.e. order of the Court
below extending benefit of pre-arrest bail stating therein existence of
genuine certificate, now the petitioners will deal with other aspect of the
matter i.e. of completion of major part of the work.
16.Mr. Sharma further submits that for carrying out the work of design,
drawing, construction, testing, commissioning of collecting well capacity
300KL with canal intake etc. as stated in tender inviting noticee,
Annexure P-1, which has been stated to be PAC of Rs.2114.23 Lakhs,
petitioners have purchased the material i.e. 250mm PVC pipes
amounting to Rs.54,30,630/- after acceptance of the tender and paid the
said amount under different bills. Further the petitioners have purchased
TMT Bar, Binding Wires, MS Pipes, GC Coil, clamp, angle, MS Square,
and total value of goods purchase comes to Rs.7-8 Crore approximately.
Thus it is clear that for completion of work in question petitioners have
purchased the aforementioned materials, the work was undergoing, all
aforementioned materials were dumped either in the site or godown near
the site and regarding this aspect of the matter also, the respondent
authorities are aware but they have deliberately avoided giving reference
of all these purchases made by petitioners for completion of work. In
respect of completion of work, petitioners have also made calculation
and prepared a chart showing percentage of work against budgeted
tender value and so far as present tender is concerned i.e. agreement
No.121/DL/2023-2024 under NIT No.333 dated 29.1.2026, petitioners
have completed 52.14% of work. Thus, it is clear that there is some
substance in contention of petitioners regarding extent of work
completed and entitlement of payment thereof under the said agreement.
Mr. Sharma draws attention towards the chart annexed with the
rejoinder in which there are averments made in respect of other two
35
agreements regarding which separate agreement Np. 120/DL/2023-
2024 of Surajpur Gangikot Kenapara of which the petitioners have
completed 43.4% of work under the agreement and under Agreement
No. 122/DL/2023-2024 of Surajpur Runiyadih, petitioners have
completed 51.68% of the work against budgeted tender value. These
averments are being made for the reason that petitioners have filed other
writ petitions in which also the petitioners have made averments of
completion of work and of which no reply has been filed by respondent
authorities despite issuance of notice in this regard.
17.Mr. Sharma submits that the respondent authorities have not placed on
record true and real facts or twisting the facts for their benefit. When the
respondents state about arbitration clause in paragraph 12 of their
return, the respondent authorities have deliberately not stated about
relevant clauses of agreement, particularly Clause 29, and clause 19
relating to jurisdiction of the Court. Clause 19 provides that any dispute
arising out of the contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Hon'ble
High Court of Chhattisgarh. Further, from a bare perusal of Clause 29, it
would be clear that it deals with all questions and disputes during the
progress completion/abandonment and on of work or such occurrence
giving authority to Superintending Engineer to give his written instruction
within 60 days and the parties were bound to comply written instruction
or decision promptly. Further, aggrieved party may prefer appeal before
the Executive Engineer and Clause VIII speaks volume about the scope
of arbitrator which states that a reference to the arbitrator shall be no
ground for continuing the work on the part of the contractor and payment
as per terms and conditions of agreement shall be continued by the
department. Thus, the scope of this arbitration clause, as is appears,
deals with disputes and difference if arise during pendency of contract,
36
the same may be settled by referring the same to the superior officers
and the same is no ground not to continue the work and so far as the
dispute as raised before this Hon'ble Court, is not covered under the
said agreement clause, rather said clause supports the case of
petitioners as the petitioners are ready and willing to complete the work,
subject to making payment at the rate agreed upon by the parties under
the said agreement. Substance of averments made herein is that said
arbitration clause has no relevance keeping in mind the dispute raised
before this Hon'ble Court about blacklisting and termination of contract
because Clause 29 deals with the dispute between the parties will be
settled by various wings of the Department so that completion of work
may not be hampered. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the
defence raised by respondents in their return has any substance. So far
as the contention of the respondents regarding conducting measurement
is concerned, the same is an ex-parte one and no reason has been
assigned for saying completion of 2.5% of the work assigned to
petitioners. However, interesting fact is that the petitioner has been paid
as per respondents themselves and amount of Rs. 18,25,762/- and
further in ex-parte valuation final bill has been calculated at
Rs.54,64,650/-. The description as given in Annexure R-5 does not deal
with the aspect of purchasing the materials for steel work, Gl barbed
wire, and purchases made in this regard of the materials for which bills
have been submitted and enclosed herein above.
18.Mr. Sharma lastly submits that now before this Hon'ble Court there are
two versions, one of the petitioners of submitting genuine documents
while participating in tender process or relying on the documents appear
to be issued by a State authority and there appears to be no reason to
doubt in respect of experience certificate of a State instrumentality i.e.
37
Municipal Council Karad, and another version is of respondent
authorities of deliberate submission of forged certificate for obtaining the
work and for which the respondent authorities are relying upon certain
letters which have been falsified by the order passed by criminal court
below in which during course of investigation, the police authorities have
found that letter dated 17.10.2024 by which the office of Municipal
Council Karad has certified issuance of experience certificate and
weighing respective cases of the parties. the contention of the petitioners
is that balance is tilting towards the petitioner and for this reason when
the sheet anchor of the defence of the respondent authorities suffers
from deficiency or shortage and in preponderance of probabilities, the
case of petitioners lie in high pedestal and further when the petitioners
are ready to complete the work at the same cost although at the risk of
suffering some loses due to price etc., it would be in the interest of
justice that petitioners be allowed to complete the work within the time
framed allowed by this Hon'ble Court and other consequential orders be
passed of terms of payment etc. in the interest of justice.
19.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
pleadings, documents placed on record and the rival submissions
advanced.
20.Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits, it is apposite to note
that the earlier round of litigation culminating in order dated 07.03.2025
in WPC No.1263/2025 had quashed the show-cause notices primarily
on the ground of pre-determination and directed the respondents to take
a fresh decision in accordance with law. The said order was
substantially affirmed in writ appeal and thereafter modified only to a
limited extent in review, whereby liberty was expressly reserved in favour
38
of the competent authority to reconsider the matter after affording due
opportunity to the petitioners. Thus, the respondents were required to
undertake a fresh, independent and unbiased decision-making exercise.
21.The record placed before this Court indicates that pursuant to the
aforesaid liberty, notice dated 21.11.2025 was issued to the petitioners
to appear for personal hearing before the competent authority on
27.11.2025. The petitioners admittedly appeared on 28.11.2025 and
submitted written representation. The minutes of the Apex Committee
meeting dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure P-12) record that the submissions
of the contractors, including the present petitioners, were considered.
Therefore, the contention of denial of opportunity cannot be accepted in
the facts of the present case. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of
the decision does not establish breach of principles of natural justice.
The core allegation against the petitioner(s) is submission of a false or
fabricated experience certificate purportedly issued by respondent No.6,
on the strength whereof the petitioners qualified in the technical bid and
secured the contract. The respondents have relied upon verification
obtained from the issuing authority, namely the Municipal Council,
Karad, which categorically stated that no such certificate had been
issued. The petitioners, on the other hand, seek to rely upon certain
subsequent communications and the pendency of criminal proceedings
to contend that there exists doubt regarding genuineness of the
certificate.
22.It is settled law that in tender matters, submission of false information or
forged documents strikes at the root of the bidding process and vitiates
the contract itself. Once the eligibility of the bidder is found to have been
secured on the basis of misrepresentation or false documentation, the
39
employer is justified in cancelling the contract and taking consequential
action including blacklisting. The sanctity of public procurement cannot
be compromised. In the present case, the petitioners have not placed
any conclusive material before this Court establishing that the
experience certificate relied upon by them was in fact issued by the
competent authority. On the contrary, the contemporaneous verification
obtained by the respondents from the alleged issuing body denied
issuance of the certificate. The subsequent criminal proceedings or
grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent No.6 do not ipso facto validate
the certificate or exonerate the petitioners in contractual law. The
standard of proof in criminal proceedings and administrative tender
matters is distinct. The submission of the petitioners that they acted
bona fide relying upon Respondent No.6 also cannot absolve them. The
tender conditions specifically required bidders to ensure authenticity of
documents submitted and contained an undertaking that false
submissions would entail termination and blacklisting. Having derived
benefit of technical qualification on the basis of such certificate, the
petitioners cannot now disown responsibility. Once the contract itself
stood vitiated on account of ineligibility of the petitioners at the threshold
stage, the respondents were justified in terminating the agreement and
proceeding to re-tender the balance work at the risk and cost of the
petitioners in terms of the tender conditions. Such action cannot be
termed arbitrary or unjust.
23.The next question pertains to the proportionality and sustainability of the
penalty of blacklisting imposed upon the petitioners for a period of three
years. It is well settled that blacklisting has serious civil consequences,
as it debars a contractor from participating in future government tenders
and adversely affects its business reputation and livelihood. Therefore,
40
such action must satisfy the tests of fairness, proportionality and
reasoned decision-making.
24.In the present case, the material on record shows that the respondents
proceeded on the premise that the experience certificate relied upon by
the petitioners was not genuine, based primarily on verification from the
alleged issuing authority. However, the record also discloses that the
petitioners had, from the inception, taken the stand that the certificate
had been furnished to them through Respondent No.6 and that they
were unaware of any defect in its issuance. The matter is also the
subject of criminal proceedings, and the role and culpability of the
parties in relation to the certificate is yet to attain finality. Significantly, the
impugned decision of the Apex Committee does not record any
independent finding that the petitioners themselves fabricated or
knowingly submitted a forged document.
25.The distinction between a bidder who intentionally furnishes a forged
certificate and one who relies upon a document later found defective is
material for the purpose of determining the proportionality of blacklisting.
The impugned order proceeds on assumption rather than a clear finding
of mens rea or deliberate misrepresentation attributable to the
petitioners. It is equally relevant that the respondents have themselves
treated the issue as one involving disputed facts requiring criminal
investigation. In such a situation, imposition of the extreme measure of
blacklisting for three years, without a conclusive determination of
intentional wrongdoing by the petitioners, cannot be said to satisfy the
requirement of proportionality. Administrative action having stigmatic
and exclusionary consequences must be founded on clear and
established culpability. This Court is therefore of the view that while the
41
respondents were justified in protecting the sanctity of the tender
process by cancelling the contract once the eligibility document became
doubtful, the further step of blacklisting the petitioners for three years
travels beyond what was necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Termination of the contract itself neutralized any advantage derived from
the questioned certificate. In absence of a definitive finding of fraud or
conscious misrepresentation by the petitioners, the penalty of
blacklisting cannot be sustained.
26.The Supreme Court, Gorkha Security Services (supra), has described
blacklisting as being equivalent to the civil death of a person because
blacklisting is stigmatic in nature and debars a person from participating
in government tenders thereby precluding him from the award of
government contracts. It was held thus:
“16. It is a common case of the parties that the
blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause
notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does
not even demand much amplification. The necessity of
compliance with the principles of natural justice by
giving the opportunity to the person against whom
action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid
and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many
civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as
“civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of
blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and
debars such a person from participating in government
tenders which means precluding him from the award of
government contracts.”
27.The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in UMC
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which reads as under:
“14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a
person or an entity by the state or a state corporation,
the requirement of a valid, particularized and
unambiguous show cause notice is particularly crucial
due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the
stigmatization that accrues to the person/entity being
42
blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe the
concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the
consequences occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the
effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged
opportunity of entering into government contracts. This
privilege arises because it is the State who is the
counter party in government contracts and as such,
every eligible person is to be afforded an equal
opportunity to participate in such contracts, without
arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does
blacklisting takes away this privilege, it also tarnishes
the blacklisted person’s reputation and brings the
person’s character into question. Blacklisting also has
long-lasting civil consequences for the future business
prospects of the blacklisted person.”
28.Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned
decision dated 02.12.2025 of the Apex Committee is liable to be
interfered with in part. While the respondents were within their authority
to annul the contract and proceed with re-tendering after the eligibility
document relied upon by the petitioners was found doubtful, the further
direction debarring/blacklisting the petitioners for a period of three years
cannot be sustained in law for want of a clear and conclusive finding of
deliberate fraud or intentional misrepresentation attributable to the
petitioners. The penalty of blacklisting imposed upon the petitioner(s),
being disproportionate in the facts of the cases, therefore deserve to be
and is accordingly set aside.
29.Insofar as the remaining claims of the petitioners relating to continuation
of the contract, completion of balance work, payment of alleged dues,
valuation of work executed, or any other contractual consequences are
concerned, the same arise out of and are governed by the terms of the
agreement executed between the parties. Such disputes involve
examination of contractual obligations, measurements, bills and factual
determinations which fall outside the limited scope of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the
43
contract itself provides a specific dispute-resolution mechanism. The
petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to the competent jurisdictional
Civil Court or by invoking the arbitration/dispute resolution mechanism
provided in the agreement, in accordance with law. All rights and
contentions of the parties in that regard are left open.
30.As a result, all the above petitions stand partly allowed. No order as to
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
44
Head Note
An order of blacklisting a tenderer has serious civil consequences, as it
debars him from participating in future tenders and adversely affects its
business reputation and livelihood. Therefore, such action must satisfy
the tests of fairness, proportionality and reasoned decision-making.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....