The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a contractor who challenged a 10-year blacklisting order issued by the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (BSEIDC). The petitioner had allegedly submitted a forged experience certificate while applying for a tender related to the construction of girls’ hostels in West Champaran, Bihar.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, a contractor registered under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, participated in a government tender floated by the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation (BSEIDC) for constructing girls’ hostels in West Champaran. The Corporation later issued a show-cause notice to the contractor, stating that the experience certificate he submitted was forged. Eventually, the contractor was blacklisted for 10 years.
The contractor approached the High Court, arguing that:
- The show-cause notice lacked essential details, making it difficult to respond effectively.
- The blacklisting order was invalid because only the original registering authority (Rural Works Department) had the power to cancel his registration.
- The notice inviting tender was issued before the amendment of relevant rules, rendering the show-cause notice invalid.
However, the Court found that:
- The experience certificate submitted by the contractor was verified with the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., which denied issuing the document. This was the basis of the blacklisting.
- The contractor did not attach the certificate in question to his writ petition or even assert that it was genuine.
- The Power Distribution Company, whose verification played a key role in the blacklisting, was not made a party to the writ petition.
The Court emphasized that filing a writ petition is an extraordinary discretionary remedy. Since the petitioner failed to disclose the document in question or include the necessary parties, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in his favor.
The Court also clarified a common misconception: blacklisting is not equivalent to cancelling a contractor’s registration. While the contractor remains registered, he cannot participate in tenders issued by the blacklisting authority during the blacklisting period. Once the period ends, the contractor can again apply without needing a new registration.
In conclusion, the Court found no procedural or legal flaw in the blacklisting order and refused to intervene. However, it left open the possibility for the contractor to request a reduction in the blacklisting duration from the concerned authority.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that public bodies can blacklist contractors who use fraudulent means to qualify for government contracts. It serves as a warning to all contractors that forging documents can lead to severe consequences, including long-term disqualification from public tenders. The decision also clarifies that blacklisting does not cancel the contractor’s registration but only suspends eligibility for specific projects, thereby protecting the integrity of public procurement without overreaching administrative powers.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the blacklisting order was valid when the show-cause notice lacked full details
→ Yes. The contractor failed to deny the forgery or produce the document, making the blacklisting justified. - Whether only the registering authority can issue blacklisting orders
→ No. A tendering department can blacklist a contractor independently of the registering authority. - Whether procedural defects invalidated the blacklisting
→ No. Since the forged document was confirmed by the issuing department and not denied by the contractor, procedure was deemed fair.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)
- Annexure-P/6 — A previous judgment where blacklisting was quashed for being a non-speaking order. [Details not specified in this judgment]
Case Title
Sharda Construction v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18608 of 2023
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
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
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.
