IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that submitting false documents in tender processes justifies disqualification and forfeiture of bid security under the relevant tender clauses.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. Kogje, J.

1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for issuance of a writ for setting aside communication dated 14.08.2023 and another communication dated 16.09.2023, by which the petitioner was held disqualified and his bid security in the tender proceeding was ordered to be forfeited and the petitioner was blacklisted (debarred from participating).

2.1 It is a case where the petitioner was successful bidder in the tender proceedings issued by the respondent-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (“the Board” for short), which is Government of Gujarat undertaking for “Design & Construction of Various Sizes RCC Sumps & RCC ESR, providing, supplying, lowering laying and jointing of DI & PVC pipeline for Rising main / Gravity distribution pipeline network including providing, supplying, erecting and testing Pumping Machineries at Main HW & Sub HW & Village Level Pumping Stations, RCC Road, Staff Quarter, Compound Wall, Electrification Work and other head work development works at Main HW and Sub HW and Operation and Maintenance of all type civil and mechanical structure, machineries and pipeline network for 10 years for A2 Augmentation Regional Water Supply Scheme based on Dholka Branch Canal: Part-I (Telav Group): Package-I, Taluka: Bavla and Sanand: District: Ahmedabad”. The petitioner, being fully qualified, was eligible for being awarded the work order. However, the respondent-Board arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has misled the Board by stating incorrect facts in awarding the contract to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice and thereafter, a decision was taken for disqualifying as well as forfeiting the earnest money deposit and blacklisting the petitioner.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the procedure undertaken to take a decision against the petitioner is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of tender document, particularly conclusion arrived at by the respondent-Board that the petitioner has played fraud and submitted false document along with the bid.

3.1 According to learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, the document in question is a certificate in a prescribed form-3A exhibiting the work experience of the petitioner in the nature of work for which the tender was floated.

3.2 It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted experience certificate issued by appropriate authority which was authorised to issue such certificate in view of successful completion of contract with the certificate issuing authority. It was upon verification undertaken by the respondent-Board that the certificate issuing authority had given certificate which was issued to the joint venture, of which the petitioner was one of the participating constituent companies. Therefore, according to the respondent-Board, there was variation in the certificate produced by the petitioner along with the bid and the certificate which was found by the respondent-Board upon verification. Treating this document to be false and fraudulent, the impugned action is taken against the petitioner. It is argued that the certificate which was given by the petitioner with the bid was certified to be genuine by the certificate issuing authority and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the document placed by the petitioner with the bid was false document.

3.3 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has referred to communication dated 09.08.2023, which is an order to encash bank guarantee and thereafter, issued notice dated 23.08.2023 calling for explanation on the ground that by placing experience certificate-3A, the petitioner has misled. According to learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, show cause notice was only on the cause of action of the petitioner having misled the respondent- Board in issuing contra