News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 174 | 2026:CGHC:10481-DB
February 28, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has heard a batch of writ petitions filed by several contractors who have challenged the cancellation of their contracts and a three year blacklisting order issued by State authorities in connection with water supply projects under the Jal Jeevan Mission.
The lead matter, WPC No. 778 of 2026 along with connected petitions including WPC No. 878 of 2026, was taken up by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal on 28 February 2026. Since the facts and issues were similar across the cases, the court decided to consider them together and pass a common judgment.
The petitioners include firms such as M/s A.K. Construction, Vikram Teleinfra Private Limited, Anand Consultants and others. They had participated in tenders issued by the Public Health Engineering Department for multi village water supply schemes in districts such as Surajpur and Koriya. According to them, they successfully cleared the technical and financial bids, executed agreements with the department and began work after receiving formal work orders.
The dispute arose when the State issued show cause notices alleging that the contractors had relied on a fake experience certificate purportedly issued by M/s Vijay V. Salunkhe of Pune to qualify in the technical bid. After verification from the Municipal Corporation, Karad in Maharashtra, the authorities concluded that no such certificate had been issued by the competent authority. Based on this finding, the Apex Committee of the State Water and Sanitation Mission, in its meeting dated 2 December 2025, resolved to maintain an earlier decision dated 20 December 2024, terminate the contracts and blacklist the firms for three years from participating in future works of the department. Fresh tenders were subsequently issued for the remaining work at the risk and cost of the petitioners.
The contractors argue that the decision is arbitrary and contrary to earlier directions of the High Court in previous rounds of litigation between the parties. They submit that the show cause proceedings were conducted in a predetermined manner and that the opportunity of hearing was merely formal. The petitioners maintain that they relied in good faith on the experience certificate and deny any deliberate submission of forged documents. They also contend that a substantial portion of the work had already been completed and that the department is unjustly withholding payments while proceeding with new tenders for the balance work.
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, has defended the action. According to the State, the petitioners secured contracts on the basis of fabricated documents, which vitiated the entire tender process. It is argued that verification from the issuing authority clearly established that the certificate was not genuine. The State further maintains that, after earlier show cause notices were set aside with liberty to proceed afresh, personal hearings were conducted and representations were duly considered before the Apex Committee reaffirmed its decision. On the issue of work completion, the State disputes the contractors’ claim of having completed around 70 percent of the project, stating that actual progress was minimal and that payments will be processed strictly in accordance with verified measurements and contractual terms.
The case raises significant questions about the scope of judicial review in contractual disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution, the effect of alleged fraud in public procurement, and the procedural safeguards required before blacklisting a contractor. The outcome is expected to clarify the standards that apply when public authorities cancel contracts and impose debarment in large infrastructure projects under government schemes.
Case Reference : WPC Nos. 839/2026 (M/s A.K. Construction & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), 778/2026 (M/s A.K. Construction vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), 822/2026 (M/s A.K. Construction & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), 824/2026 (M/s Anand Consultants vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), 825/2026 and 826/2026 (M/s Vikram Teleinfra Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), 860/2026 (M/s Shree Ganpati Construction vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), 878/2026 (Vikram Teleinfra Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), 881/2026 (M/s Somvanshi Enviro Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), 883/2026 (M/s Dharmesh Kumar, a Proprietary Concern vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and 884/2026 (M/s Anand Consultants vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.); Counsels: For the Petitioners – Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. Raza Ali and Mr. Saurabh Choudhary, Advocates; For Respondents No. 1 to 5/State – Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General; For Respondent No. 6 – None.
