In a recent decision, the Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of a government policy on blacklisting contractors, ruling that the challenge was premature since no actual blacklisting had occurred in the petitioner’s case. The petitioner had sought to quash Office Order No. 154 dated 18.06.2015, issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, which defined new types of corrupt practices and prescribed specific durations for blacklisting contractors. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent adoption of this order by the Water Resources Department through Memo No. 909 dated 17.12.2015. According to the petitioner, both orders lacked legal authority and were inconsistent with the terms set out in the Standard Bidding Documents, which govern government contracts. However, the Hon’ble Court observed that the petitioner had not actually been blacklisted, and therefore no cause of action had yet arisen. As a result, the Court found that the petition was filed prematurely and could not be entertained at this stage. The Court clarified that policy decisions of the government can be challenged only when they cause direct harm or affect legal rights. Since the petitioner’s rights had not yet been adversely impacted—i.e., she had not been blacklisted—the petition lacked the necessary factual basis for judicial intervention. The judgment concluded by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in the event she is blacklisted in the future, at which point a legal cause of action would arise. This case reinforces the principle that courts will not intervene in policy matters in the abstract. A litigant must show a specific harm or injury resulting from the policy to sustain a writ petition.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This decision has significant implications for contractors, consultants, and others who engage in public procurement with the Bihar government. It underscores that judicial review of government policy—particularly disciplinary policies like blacklisting—must be grounded in actual events. Merely disagreeing with the policy or speculating about its possible misuse is not enough. For government departments, the ruling reaffirms their discretion to issue policy guidelines, including punitive measures for corruption, provided those measures are invoked lawfully and can be challenged when implemented in specific cases. Importantly, this case signals to potential litigants that constitutional courts will not entertain theoretical or academic challenges without proof of harm. This approach ensures judicial resources are spent on real disputes and not on speculative issues.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the government’s blacklisting policy could be challenged before it is applied to a specific individual? ✔ Court held the petition was premature as the petitioner had not been blacklisted.
- Whether the Office Orders dated 18.06.2015 and 17.12.2015 could be quashed for lacking legal authority? ✔ Court declined to interfere, stating that the policy itself could be challenged only upon accrual of cause of action.
Case Title
Neha Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4823 of 2023
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan — for the Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Shahi (Advocate General) — for the Respondents
Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/a78bc789-0141-434e-86b5-a52576ead88d.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.
