Om Parkash Chauhan & Another vs State Of H.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6174 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Om Parkash Chauhan & Another vs State Of H.P. And Others on 29 May, 2025

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja

                                     1
                                                            ( 2025:HHC:16730 )

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                      CWP No.7262 of 2024
                                      Decided on: 29.05.2025


Om Parkash Chauhan & another                                 ........Petitioners
                   Versus
State of H.P. and others                                     .....Respondents.

Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioners:                  Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents:                     Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
                                         with   Mr.Ramakant    Sharma,    Mr.
                                         Navlesh Verma, Mr. Sushant Keprate,
                                         Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs and
                                         Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate
                                         General for respondents No.1 to 6-
                                         State.

                                         Mr. Mukul Sood,           Advocate,        for
                                         respondent No.7.

                                         Mr. Santosh K.S. Bakshi, Dy. Director,
                                         Horticulture, Dist5rict Sirmour at
                                         Nahan, H.P. in person.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

Reply on behalf of respondent No.7 filed in the open court,

which is taken on record.

2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the

following substantive reliefs:-

"i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to cancel the award letters (Annexure P-2 to P-4) issued in favour of private respondent.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

( 2025:HHC:16730 )

ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to forfeit the security deposited by the private respondent.

iii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to recover the amount paid to the private respondent.

iv) That the respondent may kindly be retained to award further tender to the private respondent.

v) That the respondent may kindly be directed to blacklist the private respondent.

vi) That the respondent may kindly be directed to initiate legal action against the private respondent."

3. On 15.05.2025, this court passed the following orders:-

"The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to cancel the award letters (Annexure P-2 to P-4) issued in favour of private respondent.

ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to forfeit the security deposited by the private respondent.

iii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to recover the amount paid to the private respondent.

iv) That the respondent may kindly be retained to award further tender to the private respondent.

v) That the respondent may kindly be directed to blacklist the private respondent.

vi) That the respondent may kindly be directed to initiate legal action against the private respondent.

Learned Additional Advocate General on instructions states that an inquiry was got conducted and allegations against respondent No.9 were found to be correct. Thereafter, not only the work was withdrawn from the said respondent but even penalty was imposed and thereafter, he was blacklisted. Let affidavit to this effect be filed by the respondents on or before the next date of hearing"

( 2025:HHC:16730 )

4. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, the respondents

No. 2, 3 and 6 have filed their compliance report. It shall be apt to

reproduce para Nos. 2 to 6 thereof, which read as under:-

"2. That it is submitted that for construction of (Gravity Irrigation Scheme) GIS for Chiimu cluster Jila Panchayat Shillai, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.under HPHDP tenders were duly invited on 05.06.2021, for the three job works amounting to ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/ firms enlisted in Jal Shakti Vibgah, HPPWD/CPWD/any Govt. organization/ any corporation, in the appropriate class and should have similar nature work completed as prime contractor of at least one work of minimum value of five lakhs in last seven years. Thereafter, on dated 28.06.2021 the quotations were duly opened for execution of the GIS Scheme in which the bid of the respondent No.9 was approved for execution of the GIS scheme, being the lowest bid (L-1) and the work as per the prevailing market rate to the tune of ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/53,88,240/-was awarded to the respondent No.9. namely Sh. Chamel Singh. The copy of notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 05.06.2021 and technical proceeding dated 28.06.2021 and letter of acceptance dated 10.11.2021 are placed on record as Annexure R-1, R-2 and R-3 respectively.

3. That during the execution of the work, petitioner filed complaint dated 08.06.2022 in the O/o Deputy Director of Horticulture Nahan, regarding cancellation of tender allotted to respondent No.9 due to submission of fictititous work done certificate and recovery of payment made by the WUA to the contractor. The copy complaints dated 08.06.2022 Annexure R-4 colly. The copy of Annexure R-4 was also forwarded to the XEN, Rajgarh HPHDP with directions to enquire into the matter and submit the reply of application to this office within 5 days. So that it could be disposed timely to avoid any delay. Thereafter, the work, done by the contractor was also checked by the than Xen Rajgarh, Er. Anil Manuja, who submitted his

( 2025:HHC:16730 ) report dated 15.07.2022, which is annexed as Annexure R-5 colly. The same was also verified from the O/o Municipal Corporation, Shimla, who intimated that they have not issued any such letter as endorsed by the contractor while submission of tender documents. Therefore, respondent No.9 (Contractor) was found guilty of producing fictitious work done certificate. However, as per report of MC, Shimla dated, 15.07.2022, respondent No.9 (contractor) had actually done the work for C/ O Civil Work amounting to ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/511191/-only and ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/318217/- only during the year 2017-18, which was certified by the Executive Engineer MC Shimla. Copy of the letter dated 15.07.2022 is annexed as Annexure R-6 colly. Thereafter, inquiry was also conducted by the inquiry officer Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Irrigation Engineer Specialist (IES) Shimla, who was appointed as inquiry officer by the O/O Nodal Officer, HPHDP, Shimla to verify the facts of the said complaint, who during the course of the inquiry found that the work done certificate submitted by the respondent No.9 concerned was fictitious certificate at the time of tendering, which cannot be proved at the time of opening of tenders, whether it was authenticated or not. Copy of the inquiry report dated 31.12.2022 submitted by Sh.Susheel Kumar is annexed as Annexure-R-7colly.

4. That the inquiry officer gave the following observations in his inquiry report: -

Now there is no alternative left except to panelize the contractor as under:

Some suitable penalty is to be imposed on the contractor for submitting forged work done documents and later releasing of payments to the contractor by the WUA, without fulfilling codal formalities. The penalty imposed by the WUA vide letter no. nil dated 11.12.2022 amounting to ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/10000/- is not sufficient.

However, on the basis of report of Sh. Susheel Sharma (IES), the penalty was enhanced to ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/20000/- by WUA. chimmu cluster, vide resolution No nil dated

( 2025:HHC:16730 ) 01.01.2023. Copy of resolution is annexed as Annexure R-8. Thereafter, in compliance to the said resolution respondent No.9 deposited further ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/10000/- on 02.01.2023 in the bank account of WUA. The copy of the same is placed on record as Annexure R-9. Whereas Sh. Chamel Singh Contractor was found guilty of doing tempering in the document, thereby he should be debarred to participate in the tenders being called/ invited under the WB Project or anywhere in the HP Govt. Departments for at least five years if he gives written undertaking on affidavit that he has committed the mistake and may please be pardoned, being first mistake done due to some family circumstances.

5. That lastly, inquiry officer submitted his report with the conclusion:-

that the complaints made by Sh. Madan Singh S/ O Sh. Jeet Singh R/O Millah, Tehsil Shillai and Sh. Om Prakash are without any facts except the work done certificate (for which the penalty has been imposed) it is recommended that WUA should get the bill prepared on the bases of record already maintained in the office record register by JE Shillai and also deduct the amount of recovery to be made as penalty and alongwith advances, already paid to the contractor by the WUA. The WUA may also be directed by the DDH, Sirmour, not to release any payments, as an advance in future, which can detrimental to the project completion. Since there is sufficient water available for C/O GIS Chimmu cluster, therefore the tender for the balance works should be processed in the interest of Project.

Copy of inquiry report dated 31.12.2022 is annexed as (Annexure R-7).

( 2025:HHC:16730 )

6. That the respondent No.9 also submitted an affidavit dated 09.02.2023, whereby he declared:-

1. That I have committed the mistake and may please be pardoned being first mistake done due to some family circumstances.

2. That I am H.P.P.W.D & IPH Contractor (Registered) Copy of affidavit of respondent No.9 is annexed as Annexure- R-10 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court"

5. It needs to be noticed that in the first enquiry that was

concluded on 15.07.2022, the Enquiry Officer had clearly concluded as

under:-

"Now this is a clear cut case of fraud and higher authorities are to decide this fraud done by Sh. Chamel Singh to get 3 No tenders in his name.

Sh. Chamel Singh awarded tenders details is as under.

                   Work name                            Date of           Amount of Work
                                                        award             award     position

1. Construction of crate 11.10.2021 17,00,215/- Partly wall (2Nos) intake completed chamber (2Nos) water storage tanks (1No 141m3)

2. Construction of water 11.10.2021 13,57,556/- Partly tank (50000 lits 3 Nos) completed

3.Providing laying 11.10.2021 23,30,469/- Fully jointing of GI pipes completed

It is also mentioned that this office has not done/recommended any payment to Sh. Chamel Singh for the work done by him so far."

6. However, despite this enquiry, the official/officer did not

choose to lodge an F.I.R against respondent No.9 and rather went

out of the way to release the payment of ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/35, 83,072/- for the work

( 2025:HHC:16730 )

done by him upto 13.06.2022, which amount thereafter was released

to him (respondent No.9) by deducting a meager sum of ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/20,000/- as

penalty.

7. No doubt, remaining work of ₹ 5,009,214/- from the eligible contractors/18,05,168/- was withdrawn

from respondent No.9 based on the enquiry report, yet no steps

whatsoever were taken to blacklist respondent No.9 as was otherwise

held out to this court on 15.05.2025.

8. Even in the second enquiry report, the work done

certificate submitted by respondent No.9 was found to be forged one

and it was suggested that some suitable penalty be imposed upon

him for submitting forged work done documents and later releasing the

payment to respondent No.9 by the respondent No.8-Society but no

action whatsoever was taken.

9. The aforesaid discussions only leads to one conclusion

that apart from respondent No.9, many other persons of the

respondent No.8-Society as well as certain government officials could

be complacent in the entire episode or else respondent No.9 would not

have been allowed to go virtually scot free as has been done in the

present case. Respondent No.9 has not only been found guilty of

furnishing false certificates but has himself acknowledged the same

in his affidavit (Annexure R-10).

10. This is a fit case where criminal proceedings need to be

initiated against respondent No.9 by Mr. Santosh K.S. Bakshi, Deputy

( 2025:HHC:16730 )

Director, Horticulture, District Sirmour at Nahan, H.P. who is present in

person in the court.

11. Accordingly, respondent No.6-Dy Director, Horticulture,

District Sirmour is directed to get an F.I.R. registered against

respondent No.9 at Police Station, SV & ACB at Nahan within one

week. The officials shall thereafter proceed to investigate the matter

where apart from complexity of the respondent No.9, they shall probe

and investigate the role of the government officials/ non-officials, more

particularly members and office bearers of respondent No.8-Society

and proceed with the matter in accordance with law, without being

influenced by any observations made here-in-above. At the same time,

steps for blacklisting respondent No.9 be also initiated by respondent

No.2.

12. The instant petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Sushil Kukreja) Judge 29th May, 2025.

(yogesh/pankaj)