Chhattisgarh high court overturns 3-year blacklisting of contractors in Jal Jeevan Mission, cites lack of proof of forgery

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh high court has set aside a three-year blacklisting of several contractors involved in Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) work, holding that such a harsh penalty cannot be sustained in the absence of a clear, reasoned finding that they had deliberately submitted forged documents.

On Feb 28, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal underlined that blacklisting carries “serious civil consequences” as it debars a contractor from all future govt tenders and gravely affects business reputation and livelihood, and therefore must satisfy tests of fairness, proportionality and reasoned decision-making.

Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Gorkha Security Services and UMC Technologies, the court recalled that blacklisting has been described as a form of “civil death”, being stigmatic and exclusionary in nature.

The Bench noted that the JJM apex committee’s decision did not record any independent finding that the petitioners might have fabricated or knowingly submitted a forged experience certificate. The court stressed that the distinction between a bidder who intentionally furnishes a forged certificate and one who relies on a document was later found defective is material while judging the proportionality of blacklisting.

The court accepted that the employer was justified in cancelling the contract and taking consequential action, including re-tendering at the risk and cost of the petitioners, once the experience certificate became
doubtful on verification from the alleged issuing authority. It held that the petitioners had failed to produce conclusive material to establish that the
certificate was in fact issued by a competent authority, while contemporaneous verification by the department showed a denial of issuance.

While upholding the termination of contracts as a measure to protect the sanctity of public procurement, the court held that imposing a three-year blacklisting without a conclusive determination of intentional wrongdoing did not meet the requirement of proportionality