Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a government contractor who challenged his blacklisting for ten years after submitting a forged experience certificate in a tender process.

The contractor was registered under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, and had applied for a construction tender issued by the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (BSEIDC) for building a +2 school at Manika, Sarairanjan Block, Samastipur. During the scrutiny of documents, the Corporation discovered that the experience certificate submitted by the contractor was allegedly forged.

The contractor was issued a show-cause notice threatening blacklisting. However, he did not respond with a proper reply. Later, on 11.05.2023, the Corporation passed an order blacklisting him for ten years based on confirmation from the Electricity Supply Division, Muzaffarpur Urban-2, which stated that the experience certificate was fake.

In court, the contractor argued that:

• The show-cause notice lacked specific details, making it impossible to submit an effective reply.
• His registration was under a different authority, and only that authority could cancel or blacklist him.
• The show-cause notice was issued under amended rules, but the tender was issued before those rules took effect.
• In similar cases, others were blacklisted for only one year.

The High Court rejected all these contentions. It noted that:

• The blacklisting order clearly mentioned the forged certificate and identified the concerned department.
• The contractor did not produce the original certificate in court, nor did he claim it was genuine.
• The contractor had already admitted to the mistake and had merely requested leniency.
• The blacklisting was not a cancellation of registration; it simply barred the contractor from participating in tenders issued by BSEIDC.
• Other departments are free to assess the impact of the blacklisting on their own, but the registration remains intact.

The Court also observed that the petitioner failed to implead the Electricity Department whose document was in question and suppressed key facts in his writ petition. Therefore, it found no justification to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court concluded that although the petitioner may seek a reduction of the blacklisting period from the concerned authority, it would not interfere at this stage. The writ petition was dismissed.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling by the Patna High Court underscores the importance of honesty and transparency in government contracting. It sends a strong message to contractors that submission of forged documents will be met with severe consequences, including long-term blacklisting.

For government agencies, this judgment reinforces their power to act decisively in cases of document fraud, even without cancelling a contractor’s overall registration. For contractors, it clarifies that blacklisting by a particular department does not necessarily end their ability to work with other departments—but the stigma and impact remain significant.

The Court also emphasized procedural fairness but balanced it with practical realities, noting that a fraudulent act once proven does not warrant undue indulgence by the judiciary.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Was the blacklisting order valid despite being based on an amended rule issued after the tender notice?
  ✔️ Yes. The show-cause notice and final order were valid, especially as the act of fraud occurred during the process.
• Can a department blacklist a contractor registered under a different authority?
  ✔️ Yes. Blacklisting is distinct from registration cancellation and can be done by the department issuing the tender.
• Did the lack of detailed show-cause notice invalidate the proceedings?
  ❌ No. The document in question (forged certificate) was specifically mentioned and the petitioner was aware of the issue.
• Can the contractor seek reduction in blacklisting period?
  ✔️ Yes. The Court allowed the petitioner to approach the authority for reconsideration.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• One cited judgment (Annexure P/6) regarding similar blacklisting being set aside due to vague orders, but the Court found it inapplicable here.

Case Title
Rama Shankar Choudhary v. Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17182 of 2023

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan — for the Petitioner
Mr. Girijish Kumar — for BSEIDC
Mrs. Binita Singh (SC-28) — for the State

Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/d18a3dab-0145-4082-812f-48c4aacc0ffe.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.