Forged Tender Documents Warrant Debarment: Karnataka HC

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of M/s MP24 Construction Company v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 23510), decided on December 9, 2025, held that a bidder cannot evade blacklisting for a forged tender document by attributing the act to an employee and upheld debarment where due process was followed.

The petitioner, M/s MP24 Construction Company, had participated as the lead member of a consortium in a tender issued by the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited (KRDCL) for a major road development project. The petitioner was found technically qualified and emerged as the L1 bidder. Subsequently, a rival bidder raised a complaint with KSRDCL alleging that one of the work experience certificates uploaded by the petitioner was forged. Upon being informed, the petitioner asserted that the impugned certificate had been uploaded by an employee without authorisation, and that the petitioner had immediately lodged a police complaint and First Information Report (FIR) against the employee and apprised the authorities of the same.

Despite these developments, the tendering authority recommended action against the petitioner, leading to proceedings before the State Level Debarment Committee. The State Government ultimately passed an order debarring the petitioner from participating in all public works in Karnataka for three years, cancelled its bid, initiated forfeiture of its earnest money deposit, and blocked its access to the State e-Procurement portal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the debarment, cancellation of bid, and allied actions.

The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed without affording a fair and effective opportunity of hearing, that the distinction between fraud and a bona fide mistake committed by an employee had not been appreciated, and that the punishment of blacklisting was grossly disproportionate. It was further argued that the statutory procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999, and Rules had not been followed and that blacklisting, amounting to ‘civil death,’ required strict compliance with procedural safeguards. The State and the tendering authorities defended their action by contending that submission of a forged document vitiates the entire tender process, that the bidder is responsible for documents uploaded using its credentials, and that debarment was necessary to protect public interest and the integrity of procurement processes.

The High Court examined the scope of judicial review in tender and blacklisting matters, reiterating that while courts ordinarily defer to administrative discretion in procurement, such deference does not extend to actions that are arbitrary, disproportionate, or taken in violation of statutory mandates and principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish any violation of natural justice or procedural safeguards. It held that the bidder could not disown responsibility for documents uploaded in the tender process and that submission of a forged document vitiates the entire tender, regardless of whether it was uploaded by an employee without authorisation. The Court also rejected the plea of disproportionality. Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court upheld the order of debarment and the allied actions taken by the State authorities and dismissed the writ petitions.

The decision affirms that bidders remain accountable for forged documents submitted in tenders and that debarment will be sustained where due process and proportionality requirements are met.