Bilaspur : The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on Saturday heard a batch of writ petitions filed by multiple contractors questioning the cancellation of their contracts and a three-year blacklisting order issued by the State authorities in connection with water supply projects under the Jal Jeevan Mission.
The lead matter, WPC No. 778 of 2026, along with several connected petitions including WPC No. 878 of 2026, was placed before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal. As the factual background and legal issues were common across the cases, the Bench decided to hear them together and pass a common judgment.
The petitioners include firms such as M/s A.K. Construction, Vikram Teleinfra Private Limited, Anand Consultants, Shree Ganpati Construction, Somvanshi Enviro Engg. Pvt. Ltd., and others. These entities had participated in tenders floated by the Public Health Engineering Department for execution of multi-village water supply schemes in districts including Surajpur and Koriya. According to the contractors, they were declared successful after clearing both technical and financial bids, executed formal agreements, and commenced work pursuant to issuance of work orders.
The controversy stems from show cause notices issued by the State alleging that the contractors had relied upon a forged experience certificate purportedly issued by M/s Vijay V. Salunkhe of Pune to qualify at the technical evaluation stage. The authorities claim that verification from the Municipal Corporation, Karad, Maharashtra revealed that no such certificate had been issued by the competent authority.
Relying on this verification, the Apex Committee of the State Water and Sanitation Mission, in its meeting held on December 2, 2025, resolved to reaffirm its earlier decision dated December 20, 2024. The Committee ordered termination of the contracts and blacklisted the firms for three years from participating in future departmental works. Fresh tenders were subsequently issued for completion of the remaining works at the risk and cost of the petitioners.
Challenging the action, the contractors contend that the decision is arbitrary and contrary to earlier directions issued by the High Court in previous rounds of litigation between the parties. They argue that the fresh show cause proceedings were conducted with a predetermined approach and that the opportunity of hearing was illusory. The petitioners maintain that they relied on the experience certificate in good faith and deny any deliberate submission of forged documents. They further assert that nearly 70 percent of the project work had already been completed and that the department is withholding legitimate payments while simultaneously issuing fresh tenders for the balance work.
Defending the State’s action, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the contracts were secured on the basis of fabricated documents, which vitiated the entire tender process. It was argued that once fraud was established through verification from the issuing authority, the State was justified in terminating the contracts and imposing debarment. The State also pointed out that earlier show cause notices had been set aside with liberty to proceed afresh, following which personal hearings were granted and representations were duly considered before the Apex Committee reaffirmed its decision. As regards the extent of work completed, the State disputed the contractors’ claim, asserting that progress on the ground was minimal and that payments, if any, would be processed strictly in accordance with verified measurements and contractual conditions.
The case brings into focus key issues relating to the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in contractual matters, the legal consequences of alleged fraud in public procurement, and the procedural safeguards required before blacklisting a contractor. The judgment is expected to clarify the standards applicable when public authorities terminate contracts and impose debarment in large-scale infrastructure projects under government schemes.