Written by Aditi RajaVadodara | October 6, 2025 08:58 PM IST 4 min readEmphasising that India is “not a land without law”, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn just as it was about to impose cost on the petitioner. (File Photo)The Gujarat High Court on Monday reprimanded a petitioner for “misleading the court” while challenging a contract awarded by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s Parks and Gardens Department to a respondent contractor on the basis of an “unverified” insolvency certificate, saying that the “whistleblower was scared and not courageous enough to come forward.”Emphasising that India is “not a land without law”, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn just as it was about to impose cost on the petitioner.A Division Bench comprising Justice A S Supehia and Justice L S Pirzada, in a verbal order on Monday, noted that the petitioner’s lawyer had sought permission to withdraw the writ petition “as we (Bench) were about to impose exemplary costs upon the petitioner for misleading the court.”Story continues below this adThe petitioner moved the court in July this year, challenging a contract awarded by the VMC to another bidder – also a respondent in the case – for supply of playground equipment for gardens in the city, contending that the respondent contractor has submitted allegedly forged insolvency certificates issued by a cooperative bank. The petitioner had referred to two documents issued by the cooperative bank pertaining to solvency certificates issued to the respondent contractor and contended that one of the two documents – dated February 12, 2024, was forged.Earlier, the court directed the petitioner to file an “additional affidavit, pointing out the manner and method in which the (contentious) certificate appended at Page 100 was procured” and that the affidavit “shall disclose the name of the officer or any other person, who provided the document to the petitioner.” The court had also stated that if the petitioner failed to file the affidavit or disclose the name of the officer, the court “would be constrained to pass an adverse order against the petitioner.”On Monday, the petitioner’s advocate informed the court that an affidavit had been filed by an individual, who had stated that he “was an officer of the municipal corporation and was a whistleblower, scared for his life and therefore, not willing to come forward.”The court then remarked, “Then we will not accept… we cannot endorse the document we do not know the authenticity (of) and from where you have procured (this document). How can we rely on this document?” When the advocate of the petitioner contended that the whistle-blower was an officer of the civic body and “was not courageous enough to come forward”, the court orally remarked, “We are not a country where there is no rule of law… Do you mean that the corporation is threatening its own employee, so we should rely on the document?” We will impose a cost on you.. The corporation has doubted the document produced on record… You are relying on some unknown person’s assertion that this is the document which is annexed and you do not want to reveal under which authority you have procured the document…”Story continues below this adThe petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the petition. The respondents to the petition, apart from the contractor chosen by the VMC, also included the VMC Commissioner, the Parks and Gardens Department of the civic body as well as the cooperative bank that issued the certificates to the respondent contractor. The VMC filed an affidavit stating that the respondent contractor had uploaded the solvency certificate during the bidding process, which was verified while the second contentious document put forth by the petitioner as forged was “not part of the records” of the VMC.Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Gujarat High Court