The Gauhati High Court has quashed show-cause orders that barred several transport firms from supplying LPG-carriage trucks, holding that electronic records submitted by the petitioners are legally equivalent to original documents and that the allegations of forgery were not substantiated. The judgment clarifies the evidentiary standards for tender compliance and directs the parties to replace the disputed vehicles.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a group of partnership firms engaged in LPG carriage, were awarded work under a tender dated 25.04.2024 for a five-year period. The tender required that all trucks supplied be of the Tata make. The firms supplied trucks whose registration certificates and DigiLocker records indicated Tata as the maker. Subsequent complaints led the respondent authorities to issue show-cause notices alleging forged documents and false statements.
Key Facts
- Work order issued on 25.04.2024 for LPG carriage, five-year term.
- Requirement: trucks must be Tata-make as per tender clause.
- Petitioners supplied trucks with registration numbers:
- WP(C)/1549/2026: 14 trucks (e.g., AS25EC9899, AS09AC5138, …)
- WP(C)/1572/2026: 18 trucks (e.g., AS27C6731, AS09AC7629, …)
- WP(C)/1627/2026: 16 trucks (e.g., AS25FC4854, AS13AC5134, …)
- WP(C)/1460/2026: 2 trucks (AS09AC7149, AS09AC4205)
- Petitioners performed due-diligence using the Vahan portal and DigiLocker; screenshots showed the maker as Tata.
- Respondent authorities, after an internal verification with the OEM, reported that the trucks were not found in the OEM’s internal records.
- Communications dated 08.08.2018 and 17.12.2018 from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways state that electronic records on DigiLocker or m-Parivahan are deemed legally recognised at par with original documents under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Procedural History
- 25.04.2024: Work order issued to petitioners.
- 11.11.2025: Show-cause notices issued alleging forgery and false statements.
- 24.11.2025: Earlier writ petition disposed; Court directed petitioners to reply to the show-cause notice within ten days, i.e., by 08.12.2025.
- 02.03.2026: Respondent authorities issued orders placing petitioners on a holiday/black-list list.
- 20.08.2026: Present common judgment delivered, setting aside the impugned orders dated 02.03.2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the show-cause orders, removal from the holiday list, and permission to continue supplying trucks under the original work order.
The Legal Issue
Whether the show-cause orders and consequent black-listing of the petitioners can be sustained when the documents relied upon by the petitioners are electronic records recognised under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and when there is no concrete proof of forgery or fraud.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- Submitted that electronic certificates from DigiLocker and the Vahan portal are statutorily deemed equivalent to original documents (Information Technology Act, 2000).
- Cited Ministry of Road Transport and Highways communications dated 08.08.2018 and 17.12.2018 supporting the parity of electronic records.
- Asserted that due-diligence was exercised and no fraudulent intent existed; the OEM’s lack of internal records does not prove forgery.
- Emphasised that the tender clauses must be interpreted in light of the accepted electronic documentation standards.
For the Respondents
- Argued that the tender expressly required Tata-make trucks for safety reasons and that the OEM’s verification disproved the petitioners’ claim.
- Maintained that the alleged mismatch of chassis numbers warranted suspension and black-listing to protect public interest.
- Contended that the burden of proving the authenticity of the documents rested on the petitioners.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the statutory framework governing electronic records. It noted that the Information Technology Act, 2000 expressly treats records stored in DigiLocker or m-Parivahan as legally recognised at par with original documents, provided they are issued by a competent authority. The Court therefore held that the registration certificates and DigiLocker screenshots produced by the petitioners satisfied the evidentiary requirement.
"These electronic records available on DigiLocker or mParivahan are deemed to be legally recognised at par with the original documents as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000."
The Court then evaluated the allegation of forgery. It observed that an accusation of falsification must be supported by concrete proof that the documents were deliberately fabricated. The respondent’s reliance on the OEM’s internal records was deemed insufficient, as the OEM had not furnished the verification report to the petitioners and the verification exercise was not uniformly applied to all vehicles.
Further, the Court considered the tender’s maker-requirement. While acknowledging the safety rationale, it stressed that the requirement could be satisfied if the documentary evidence (electronic registration certificates) indicated the maker as Tata. The Court found no clear nexus between the OEM’s internal data gap and an intention to deceive on the part of the petitioners.
Balancing the public interest in safety against the petitioners’ right to fair treatment, the Court concluded that the show-cause orders were unsustainable in law. It emphasized that procedural fairness demands an opportunity to replace any vehicles whose documentation is genuinely doubtful, rather than imposing a blanket black-list.
The Verdict
The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 02.03.2026. It directed the petitioners to replace the vehicles alleged to have forged documents with proper Tata-make trucks that comply with the tender specifications. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) was ordered to induct the replacement vehicles within one week of their supply. No costs were awarded to either side.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Electronic Documents Treated as Original
- Practitioners must treat DigiLocker and m-Parivahan certificates as prima facie evidence of authenticity.
- Opposing parties must produce a specific, admissible rebuttal to overcome the presumption of validity.
Burden of Proof on Allegations of Forgery
- Mere inconsistencies in OEM records do not suffice; concrete proof of intentional falsification is required.
- Parties alleging forgery should secure and disclose the verification report to the tribunal.
Compliance with Tender Maker Requirements
- Suppliers can rely on electronic registration data to satisfy maker-specifications, provided the data is sourced from authorized portals.
- Responding authorities should ensure uniform verification across all submissions before invoking punitive measures.
