[2025:RJ-JD:53294]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14486/2017 M/s C L Rawal, Through its Sole Properitrer C L Rawal S/o Ganesh Ram Rawal, R/o-78, Jai Mahadev Bhawan, Tagore Nagar, Hiran Magri Sector 4, Udaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Urban Improvement Trust Udaipur through its Secretary, Saheli Marg, Udaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Rawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia Mr. Pooshan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

09/12/2025

1. This instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to order dated 18.04.2016 issued by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, whereby, the petitioner firm has been debarred permanently from participating in the tender process and also cancelled the AA Class contract registration.

2. Prime submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the debarment from participating in the tender process of a firm can not be made on permanent basis. He submits that as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, a firm can be debarred from participating in the tender process for a maximum period of three years. He also submits that the respondent Trust has no authority to cancel the AA Class contract registration of the petitioner firm.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the allegations which has been made basis by the respondent for their impugned action or order is that the petitioner while submitting a tender has placed on record certain forged experience certificates but the respondent have not been able to show any proof whether the petitioner firm has committed that forgery, it may be a case where the petitioner firm is a victim as the authority whose signatures are there on the registration certificate has given forged certificate to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned order has been passed without their being any evidence on record of forgery committed by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the registration of the petitioner firm has been cancelled in view of the provisions of Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, which came into force in the year 1999. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner firm while submitting their explanation as regards allegation has admitted their act of forgery.

6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.

7. As per the facts on record, the petitioner firm was registered as ‘AA’ Class Contractor by the respondent Trust vide order dated 07.09.2010. As per the provisions, a firm is registered as ‘AA’ Class contractor after due verification of its experience and integrity in last fifteen years as regards their work experience.

8. The petitioner firm is said to have been debarred on permanent basis vide impugned order in view of the allegations of submitting forged experience certificate while procuring the tender.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has admitted the allegations of forgery.

10. It is a basic principle of law that whenever there is an allegation against any person, it is the duty of the alleging authority to prove the allegations by substantial evidence. If there is any such allegation against the petitioner firm then the respondent could have lodged a criminal case and after due investigation and trial by the competent court, the matter could have been adjudicated whether the petitioner firm has committed any forgery or not.

11. The Rajsathan State Legislature in 63^rd year of the Republic of India enacted an “Act to regulate public procurement with the objectives of ensuring tranparency, fair and equitable treatments of bidders, promotion competition, enhancing efficiency and economy and safeguarding integrity in the procurement process and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

12