1 2026:CGHC:26813-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2602 of 2026 1 - M/s Vinayak Enterprises through Its Proprietor, Abhishek Suhane, S/o-Shri Govind Das Suhane, Aged About 46 Years, R/o- Flat No. 415, Kusum- Villa, Ring Road No.1, Ravigram, Near Airtel Office, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through -Secretary, Commercial Tax And Excise Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate. For State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 01.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.2. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.02 17:18:05 +0530 2 10.2. Any other relief deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted its bid in the Bid Number; GEM/2025/B/6815726 dated 23.10.2025 which was floated through GeM Portal by CSMCL / Respondent No.2 for procurement of Deep Freezer marked to IS 7872 (Under BIS Scheme 1) (V2) (Q2). The said bid was to be opened on 22/11/2025 at 14:30:00, but later on it was cancelled by CSMCL /Respondent No. 2 and on 23.12.2025 a show cause notice was issued by the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL) to the petitioner firm on the allegation that the petitioner had submitted misleading and possibly forged CA Certificate. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner firm submitted reply on 02/01/2026 providing clarification to the CSMCL. In the said reply, the petitioner firm enclosed the clarification by the same Chartered Accountant (CA),who had earlier issued turn over certificate. However, on 05.03.2026, the respondent No.2 issued an order of blacklisting for a period of 1 year thereby prohibiting the petitioner firm to participate in any form of tender to be floated by CSMCL. Hence, this petition seeking aforequoted reliefs. 3 Shri Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05/03/2026 (Annexure P-1) has been passed in complete disregard of the reply dated 02.01.2026, wherein it was clearly explained that the alleged discrepancy in the turnover certificate arose due to an inadvertent clerical error on the part of the Chartered Accountant, which was duly admitted by the issuing authority itself. He further submits that the respondent authorities failed 3 to appreciate that no tampering, manipulation, or forged document was submitted by the petitioner and that the turnover certificate uploaded on the UDIN portal reflected correct figures. It is a settled principle of law, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. and followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Recorders and Medicare Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of C.G. & Others, that blacklisting entails serious civil consequences and cannot be imposed without adherence to principles of natural justice, including a fair opportunity of hearing and objective satisfaction of the authority. Furthermore, in UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation of India (16.11.2020), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a mere clause in the bid document is insufficient, and the proposed action of blacklisting must be clearly indicated in the show cause notice. It is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, disproportionate, and unsustainable in law, as it treats a bona fide human error as if it were a deliberate act of misconduct. Blacklisting, being a drastic measure amounting to civil death and commercial exile, must be reserved for exceptional cases involving grave wrongdoing and not for minor or inadvertent mistakes. He contended that in the present case, the explanation furnished by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 clearly established that the discrepancy was a typographical mistake by a trainee in the Chartered Accountant's office, which ought to have been accepted by the respondent authorities. The failure to distinguish between an innocent clerical error and intentional wrongdoing, coupled with the absence of any recorded subjective satisfaction, renders the order of blacklisting 4 for one year manifestly harsh and violative of the principles of proportionality and natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 On the other hand, Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 has been passed after due application of mind and upon a careful examination of the documents submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the turnover certificate furnished by the petitioner along with the tender documents raises serious doubts regarding its authenticity, as the said document neither bears any date of issuance nor contains a valid UDIN (Unique Document Identification Number), which is a mandatory requirement for certificates issued by a Chartered Accountant. In stark contrast, the turnover certificate purportedly issued for the financial year 2024-2025, clearly reflects both the date of issuance as well as a valid UDIN. This material inconsistency between the two documents strongly indicates that the certificate submitted during the tender process is not genuine and appears to be a forged or fabricated document, thereby vitiating the integrity of the bidding process. It is further submitted that the submission of such a document, which prima facie lacks essential authentication details, cannot be brushed aside as a mere clerical or typographical error, as sought to be contended by the petitioner. The absence of a date and UDIN goes to the root of the document's validity and credibility, particularly in a public procurement process where financial eligibility is determined on the basis of such certificates. He also submitted that the respondent authorities are duty-bound to 5 ensure transparency, fairness, and strict compliance with tender conditions, and any deviation or submission of suspect documents warrants strict action. The explanation offered by the petitioner fails to satisfactorily account for this glaring discrepancy, and therefore, the decision to blacklist the petitioner for a limited period of one year is justified, proportionate, and in furtherance of maintaining the sanctity of the tender process. 5 Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. A comparative perusal of the turnover certificate submitted by the petitioner along with the tender documents and the certificate annexed with the writ petition reveals a material and significant discrepancy. The certificate forming part of the tender record lacks essential particulars such as the date of issuance and UDIN, which are fundamental indicators of authenticity for documents issued by a Chartered Accountant. In contrast, the certificate subsequently relied upon by the petitioner bears both these details. This inconsistency creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the document submitted during the tender process and undermines the credibility of the petitioner's claim that the discrepancy was merely a clerical or typographical error. 6 This Court is of the considered view that submission of a document lacking basic authentication cannot be treated as a minor or inadvertent mistake, particularly in a public procurement process where 6 strict adherence to eligibility conditions is paramount. The respondent authorities have afforded due opportunity to the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice and considering the reply submitted. The explanation offered by the petitioner has rightly been found unsatisfactory in light of the material discrepancies noted above. The decision to blacklist the petitioner for a limited period of one year reflects a reasonable and proportionate exercise of administrative discretion aimed at preserving the integrity and fairness of the tender process. No violation of the principles of natural justice or proportionality is made out. This court has already taken a similar view in WPC No.2236 of 2026 (Ms. Aradhya Sales Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 06.05.2026, which was the writ petition against the same order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.2. 7 Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder