HC upholds blacklisting of pharma firm for submitting forged certificate

Bombay HC upholds BMC's decision to blacklist a pharmaceutical firm for submitting forged certificate while bidding for supply of medicines to civic hospitals.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday upheld a decision of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to blacklist a pharmaceutical firm for submitting a forged certificate while bidding for supply of medicines to civic hospitals in the city.

HT Image

“Reliance on fake and fabricated documents before a public authority is bound to invite strict action,” said the vacation bench of justice Sandeep Marne and justice Neela Gokhale while rejecting a petition filed by Scott Edil Pharmacia Ltd.

The firm approached the high court, challenging the March 7, 2024, order issued by the BMC blacklisting it for three years. The order was issued in view of the fact that the firm was found to have submitted a forged certificate while submitting bids for the supply of tablets and capsules, creams, drops, ointments, oral liquids, lotions, syrups, liniments, spirituous preparations and such other medicines for municipal hospitals, maternity homes and dispensaries.

Along with the bid, the firm had submitted “performance certificates” issued by the Food and Drugs Administration, as required under the tender conditions and were found to be fake after the civic authorities sent the same for verification to the FDA. The firm, thereafter, withdrew its bid, claiming that it intended to upgrade its facilities as per international IMP guidelines.

BMC held the firm’s bid as non-responsive and forfeited its earnest money deposit and blacklisted the firm for three years after issuing a show cause notice and giving it an opportunity for a hearing.

The firm challenged the order, contending that the bid was withdrawn before the bid validity period of 180 days and therefore there was no reason for the BMC to blacklist it, as there was no concluded contract existing between the parties.

It was further argued on behalf of the firm that it did not take any undue advantage, nor did it derive any benefit from the tender process and did not even participate in the financial bidding. The firm claimed it admitted the mistake an external agency made in submitting erroneous documents along with the bid.

The argument, however, failed to impress upon the vacation bench, which said that a bidder cannot get away without any consequence after submitting forged documents to a public authority.

It also refused to accept the excuse of blaming some external agency for the forgery. “Petitioners cannot get away from consequences arising out of forgery by blaming an outside agency. Once the bids are submitted in the name of Petitioners, they must own responsibility in respect of every document submitted along with their bids,” the bench said.

The court also noted that a criminal case has been registered against the firm with the Agripada police station and action was being taken against it by the Himachal Pradesh government.