Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
M/s A.K. Construction – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC Nos. 778, 822, 824, 825, 826, 839, 860, 878, 881, 883, 884 of 2026
Decided On : 28-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek various writs against decisions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners claim wrongful blacklisting for alleged fraud. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioners assert due process and fair hearing was denied. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. respondents argue against petitioners’ claims of valid documents. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court assesses the fairness and legality of the actions taken. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. court emphasizes sanctions on blacklisting must be justified. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. proportionality matters in administrative penalties. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. court finds grounds for claimant's relief leading to partial conclusion. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. all remaining disputes to follow contractual resolution mechanisms. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH SINHA, CJ.
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 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 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
Blacklisting as a penalty requires clear proof of intentional misconduct, and actions taken based on allegations alone may be deemed disproportionate and legally untenable.
Blacklisting a contractor for submitting a false experience certificate requires clear proof of intentional wrongdoing; failure to provide such evidence renders the action disproportionate.
The Petitioner's suppression of a material fact and approach to the Court with unclean hands led to the dismissal of the Petition.
Disqualification from tender processes necessitates adherence to procedural fairness; blacklisting without notice is arbitrary and invalid.
The court affirmed that submitting false documents in tender processes justifies disqualification and forfeiture of bid security under the relevant tender clauses.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
