Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court recently delivered a strong verdict in a writ petition filed by a construction firm challenging the rules regarding contractor registration and blacklisting under the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation (BSEIDC). The petitioner had earlier been blacklisted for submitting a fake experience certificate in a government tender process.
In this fresh writ petition, the petitioner tried to challenge the validity of amended Contractor Registration Rules, 2012—specifically a 2022 amendment (Office Order No. 73 dated 02.06.2022)—claiming the rules were unfair because the same officer (Managing Director) was acting both as the authority to blacklist and the appellate authority. The petitioner also claimed that these amended rules allowed for corrupt practices and fixed blacklisting durations.
However, the Court was not convinced. The judges observed that the petitioner had already filed an earlier writ petition (CWJC No. 18068 of 2023) against the very order of blacklisting (Annexure-P/4 dated 11.05.2023), which was dismissed after full consideration. That earlier petition had included similar arguments—that the contractor was not given notice of the fraud and that the authority who blacklisted them was not the registration authority.
The Court found the current petition to be an abuse of the judicial process. Despite being represented by the same counsel as in the previous case, the new petition deliberately omitted any mention of the earlier case. The Court called this an act of deception and strongly condemned it.
The judges emphasized that the rules alone cannot be challenged unless a person is directly affected by them. Since the petitioner’s prior challenge against the blacklisting order had already been dismissed, no new cause of action existed to challenge the rules in isolation.
To discourage such practices, the Court imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. Failure to pay would result in recovery through the District Magistrate as if it were an arrear of land revenue. Only after paying this fine could the petitioner approach the authorities for reconsideration of the ten-year blacklisting, based on earlier directions given in the prior case.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment sends a strong message against legal duplicity and abuse of process. It reinforces that litigants cannot file multiple petitions on the same issue by concealing prior litigation. The Court has drawn a firm line on professional conduct by criticizing misleading tactics used by legal representatives.
For government authorities and the public, the ruling confirms that blacklisting based on fraudulent documents—especially in public contracts—will be treated seriously. It also clarifies that rules governing tenders and contractor registration are not open to general challenge unless a person can show real prejudice.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether a contractor can challenge amended registration rules without a fresh cause of action?
- No. Since the petitioner’s earlier challenge to blacklisting failed, they had no new ground to challenge the rules.
- Whether the same authority acting as registering, penalizing, and appellate authority is unconstitutional?
- Not decided. Court found no locus to challenge as the matter had already been decided.
- Whether the writ petition was an abuse of process?
- Yes. The Court found the omission of earlier litigation deliberate and misleading.
- What penalty was imposed for misuse of process?
- ₹10,000 cost payable to Bihar State Legal Services Authority, recoverable as land revenue if unpaid.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- CWJC No. 18068 of 2023, decided on 30.01.2024 (by same petitioner, against same blacklisting order).
Case Title
M/s Sharda Construction vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
CWJC No. 3493 of 2024
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate — for the petitioner
Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General — for the respondents
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate — for the respondents
Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/16b75cb2-5af3-4b67-9f91-16933f856fb3.pdf&search=Blacklisting
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
