Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38639-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4137 of 2025 M/s Khem Sales Agency A Proprietorship Concern, Having Its OfÏce At Mahadeo Ghat Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Authorised Representative, Shri Aman Singh Bhadoriya, S/o Shri Shailendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Awadhpuri, Bhatagaon, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Water Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. 3. Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Chief Engineer (Monitoring) OfÏce Of Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sector 19, North Block, Shivnath Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 4. Superintending Engineer (Tender Cell), OfÏce Of Engineer-In-Chief, BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.05 18:15:56 +0530 Water Resources Department, Sector 19, North Block, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. M/s Gala Protek Llp, Registered OfÏce At A-2/102, Vishnu High Tech City, E-8 Extn, Arera Colony, Bhopal, Distt. Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 2 ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the steps taken by the respondent over the applications/representations submitted by the petitioner for its kind perusal and consideration. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the State Government to take steps against the respondent No. 5 in terms with Clause 2.1.6 of the tender and further to cancel the Pre- Qualification (PQ) Certificate issued to him. 3 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition highlights the administrative apathy in initiating necessary action against those guilty of fabrication, forgery, and malpractice in obtaining government contracts. Multiple complaints were made against respondent No. 5, who allegedly submitted fabricated documents with the intent to deceitfully secure government contracts. The petitioner, being the complainant, has consistently sought appropriate action against respondent No. 5; however, despite the forgery being established, no effective steps have been taken. There appears to be no justification for the respondents’ inaction even after the forgery was proven. It is submitted that this inaction has compelled the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, being a competing firm, also participated in the concerned tender process wherein respondent No. 5 was one of the participants and submitted forged documents to qualify. The petitioner asserts that probity in public procurement must be upheld, and any instance of misrepresentation, fabrication, or fraud in securing government contracts warrants strict action to weed out such elements. Despite having submitted multiple complaints, the petitioner submits that no decisive steps have been taken by the respondents for reasons best known to them. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents floated a tender in the year 2024 for “Treatment of 3 Bucket (EDA) Epoxy Treatment Work under ERM of Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Dam Machadoli (Block 19 to 26)”, under Tender System No. 1536770. All 4 participants were required to submit their applications along with prior work experience certificates and other ancillary documents to qualify for the Pre- Qualification (PQ) Certificate. The respondent No. 5 also participated and submitted the requisite documents. Upon verification, particularly of the work completion certificate submitted by respondent No. 5, it was discovered that the document was forged and fabricated. The fabrication was unearthed after due verification with the Government of Madhya Pradesh, from where the certificate was purportedly issued. A bare perusal and comparison of the certificate submitted by respondent No. 5 and the ofÏcial record from the Madhya Pradesh authorities clearly demonstrate the gravity of the forgery committed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon verification with the issuing authority, it was established that respondent No. 5 had forged Column 3 of the work completion certificate (Epoxy Mortar) to deceptively fulfill the eligibility criteria of the tender. Based on this apparent forgery, interdepartmental note-sheets were prepared by the respondents. These note-sheets explicitly record the gravity of the forgery. After due inquiry and verification, a show-cause notice was issued to respondent No. 5 on 04.09.2024, seeking an explanation regarding the forged documents. The respondent No. 5 submitted a reply on 07.09.2024, which was found to be audacious and evasive, offering no valid justification regarding the authenticity of the submitted certificate. Instead of substantiating the validity of the certificate, respondent No. 5 questioned the verification process. As the reply was found to be unsatisfactory and the forgery was conclusively established, the Pre-Qualification Certificate granted to respondent No. 5 was cancelled vide order dated 20.09.2024. 6. The learned counsel further states that it is pertinent to mention that 5 the tender document itself lays down clear consequences for submission of forged or fabricated documents. Clause 2.1.6 of the tender conditions outlines the preconditions for blacklisting and debarment from both the current and future tender processes. In terms of Clause 2.1.6(ii), the submission of forged documents mandates disqualification and blacklisting of the participant. Despite the forgery being established and the cancellation of the PQ Certificate, the respondents have failed to initiate action under Clause 2.1.6(ii) against respondent No. 5. Multiple representations were made by the petitioner and others, seeking enforcement of this clause, yet no efÏcacious action has followed. This selective inaction not only suggests administrative bias but also undermines the sanctity of public tender processes. Internal departmental notes and correspondence even suggested invoking Clause 2.1.6(ii), yet the authorities have failed to take conclusive action, thus unjustly shielding respondent No. 5. 7. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5 willfully forged past work experience records to fraudulently secure a government contract. The disqualification clause was specifically included in the tender to address such situations. The sudden deviation from established tender norms by the authorities, seemingly to protect a single participant, reflects a clear case of favoritism and administrative bias. The petitioner is apprehensive that respondent No. 5 may once again be granted a PQ Certificate, prompting the present petition seeking appropriate directions from this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned Advocate General opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court seeking relief for himself, but merely to challenge the alleged inaction in regard to respondent No. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed to the writ petition. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has approached the Court solely to question the alleged inaction of the respondent authorities in not taking punitive measures against respondent No. 5 for purported submission of forged documents in connection with a government tender. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not seeking any direct or personal relief arising out of the tender in question, nor does the petitioner claim any subsisting right or legal injury suffered by him as a result of the alleged inaction. 11. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and primarily meant to enforce legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner. Mere grievance or general dissatisfaction with administrative inaction, without demonstrating a violation of a legal right or locus standi, would not constitute a sufÏcient ground for invoking this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction. While allegations of forgery and administrative apathy are indeed serious and merit consideration by the appropriate authorities, this Court is not inclined to act in a supervisory capacity in the absence of a demonstrated infringement of the petitioner’s own rights. Further, the petitioner’s case is not one seeking enforcement of a statutory duty owed specifically to him. Rather, it is an attempt to invoke the writ jurisdiction in a representative or adversarial manner to seek punitive action against a competing party. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned against allowing public law remedies to be converted into instruments for settling private or commercial rivalries, especially when the petitioner’s role is that of a competitor in the bidding process and not an aggrieved or injured party in the legal sense. 7 12. Additionally, it is noted that the concerned authorities have already taken cognizance of the issue by initiating a show-cause proceeding and by cancelling the Pre-Qualification Certificate of respondent No. 5. The contention that further action, such as blacklisting, has not been taken may warrant administrative or departmental review, but does not, in itself, constitute a justiciable cause for judicial intervention in the present form and at this stage. 13. In light of the above discussion, and considering that the petitioner has no enforceable right or direct interest in the reliefs sought, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan