Patna High Court Sets Aside Non-Speaking Appellate Order on Contract Blacklisting

Patna High Court Sets Aside Non-Speaking Appellate Order on Contract Blacklisting

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a recent decision, the Patna High Court struck down an appellate order issued by the Bihar Planning and Development Department, finding it to be a “non-speaking” order that lacked adequate reasoning. The case involved a private agency that was contracted to supply manpower to government health institutions. The agency’s contract was canceled and it was blacklisted for two years.

The petitioner—a Patna-based manpower agency—was awarded a one-year contract via a government tender dated 01.12.2022. Subsequently, the agency received separate show-cause notices for contract cancellation and blacklisting. The department eventually canceled the contract and issued a two-year blacklisting order.

The agency initially challenged the blacklisting order before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 8122 of 2023. In that case, the Court had directed the department to issue a fresh show-cause notice, clearly mentioning the proposed action and to conduct a proper inquiry in the presence of the petitioner.

In compliance, the department conducted the hearing and passed a detailed order confirming the blacklisting. The petitioner then filed an appeal, but the appellate authority summarily dismissed it without addressing any substantive issues. The only reasoning given in the appellate order was that the petitioner had not submitted any new evidence.

The High Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarthy, held that this appellate order was non-speaking and did not evaluate the evidence already on record. The Court emphasized that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal merely on the ground that no new evidence has been submitted—especially when the original order had already been contested.

The Court directed the appellate authority to re-hear the matter after issuing proper notice to the petitioner and to pass a well-reasoned, speaking order.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision reinforces procedural fairness in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions taken by government departments. It sends a clear message to public authorities that:

  • Appellate bodies must engage with the content of appeals and provide reasoned decisions.
  • Orders that fail to explain the basis of a decision violate principles of natural justice.
  • The rights of contractors, vendors, and service providers cannot be arbitrarily curtailed without due process.
  • Blacklisting, being a serious penalty with long-term commercial consequences, demands strict compliance with fair hearing standards.

For private agencies engaging in public contracts, the judgment is a reminder of their legal protections against unjust administrative actions.

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

  • Was the appellate authority’s order legally valid?
    • No. It was non-speaking and did not assess the appeal on merits.
  • Can an appeal be dismissed merely because no new evidence was filed?
    • No. The authority must evaluate the existing record and provide justification for its decision.
  • Was the earlier direction of the High Court followed in spirit?
    • Partially. While the show-cause and hearing were conducted, the appellate process failed to meet the standards of natural justice.
  • What remedy was granted to the petitioner?
    • The Court quashed the appellate order and directed a fresh hearing and reasoned decision.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

  • None specifically cited; the Court applied general principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Case Title

M/s Vaishnavi Hospital v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

CWJC No. 12018 of 2024

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble the Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

  • For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Mr. Shivam, Ms. Vaishnavi Singh
  • For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Verma (AAG-3), Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey (A.C. to AAG-3)

Link to Judgment

https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/1051cd92-ed40-412c-8fb8-5127a244c9ab.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.

Aditya Kumar

Aditya Kumar is a dedicated and detail-oriented legal intern with a strong academic foundation in law and a growing interest in legal research and writing. He is currently pursuing his legal education with a focus on litigation, policy, and public law. Aditya has interned with reputed law offices and assisted in drafting legal documents, conducting research, and understanding court procedures, particularly in the High Court of Patna. Known for his clarity of thought and commitment to learning, Aditya contributes to Samvida Law Associates by simplifying complex legal topics for public understanding through well-researched blog posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News