Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a recent judgment dated February 27, 2025, the Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a construction firm challenging its blacklisting by the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation (BPBCC). The firm had been barred from government work for three years after it submitted a forged experience certificate during a tender process.

The dispute arose when the BPBCC invited tenders for construction and electrification of police stations in Gaya district. One of the essential conditions was that bidders must submit genuine experience certificates from recognized government bodies. The petitioner submitted a certificate allegedly issued by the Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Vegetable Marketing Federation (VEGFED).

However, upon verification, VEGFED denied ever issuing such a certificate. This prompted the BPBCC to initiate legal and disciplinary action, including lodging an FIR for forgery and fraud against the firm’s partners and power of attorney holder. The firm’s registration was subsequently blacklisted for an indefinite period, later revised to five years and finally reduced to three years on appeal. Notably, the blacklisting was made applicable across all government departments.

The petitioner argued that:

• The blacklisting was without jurisdiction since their registration had expired before the show-cause notice was issued.
• The forged certificate issue was under criminal investigation and not yet proven.
• No valid notice was served, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The Court rejected all these arguments. It held that the forged certificate issue was serious and had rightly eroded the trust of the corporation. The firm had itself filed an affidavit earlier, accepting that submission of false documents could invite blacklisting and even criminal action.

The Court further clarified that even if the registration had expired, the misconduct still warranted penal consequences, including blacklisting. The firm had a full opportunity to contest the matter in appeal, where the blacklisting duration was already reduced.

Importantly, the Court noted that the firm never denied or contested the forged nature of the certificate throughout the legal proceedings, which further weakened its case.

The High Court reaffirmed that blacklisting is a severe but justified action in cases involving fraud or dishonesty, especially when public interest and integrity of government contracts are at stake.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle that submitting fraudulent documents in government tenders is a serious offense that can lead to long-term consequences like blacklisting and criminal prosecution. It highlights the duty of public institutions to protect the integrity of tender processes and to alert other departments about dishonest contractors.

The judgment sends a strong message to all contractors and firms participating in public tenders—falsifying documents can result in disqualification, blacklisting, and even imprisonment. For government bodies, the decision provides judicial backing to enforce transparency and accountability in public procurement.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Was the blacklisting order valid despite the expiry of the firm’s registration?
  • Yes. The Court held that the misconduct (submission of a forged certificate) justified blacklisting irrespective of registration status.
• Was the principle of natural justice violated due to non-service of notice?
  • No. The Court noted that notice was sent to the address provided by the firm and was returned due to incorrect details. The firm had full opportunity to defend itself during appeal.
• Was blacklisting justified even though the criminal case was still under investigation?
  • Yes. The Court found that the prima facie evidence of forgery justified the blacklisting.
• Should the blacklisting apply to all departments or only to the BPBCC?
  • The Court upheld the order making blacklisting applicable across all department.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., (1975) 1 SCC 70
• B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548
• Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731
• Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257
• Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1896
• Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398

Case Title
M/S R.S. Construction v. Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation & Ors.

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13715 of 2024

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar (Acting Chief Justice)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
For the petitioner: Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate

Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/54116962-9c86-4452-939a-c45c539d3076.pdf&search=Blacklisting

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.