Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court dismissed a contractor’s plea challenging a 10-year blacklisting order issued by the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (BSEIDC). The contractor had been blacklisted for submitting a forged Experience Certificate while participating in a government tender.
The petitioner had applied for a public construction tender and submitted documents including an Experience Certificate. The Corporation later discovered that the certificate was fraudulent and issued a show-cause notice asking the contractor to explain why action should not be taken against him. However, the contractor did not respond to the notice.
As a result, the BSEIDC cancelled the contract award and issued a blacklisting order for a duration of 10 years. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the order.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel admitted that no reply was submitted to the show-cause notice and that the certificate in question was forged. The High Court took a stern view of this non-response, observing that failing to answer a detailed show-cause notice effectively amounts to an admission of the wrongdoing.
Given these facts, the Court held that it could not intervene in a matter where:
- Fraud had been established on record,
- The petitioner failed to participate in the administrative proceedings by not responding,
- And a statutory remedy (appeal) was available.
The High Court refused to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction, citing that there was no procedural illegality or lack of jurisdiction in the Corporation’s decision.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is a strong signal to contractors and suppliers engaging with government departments that fraudulent documentation will not be tolerated. It reinforces key principles:
- Submission of false documents in government tenders is a serious offense.
- The right to be heard must be exercised—silence in response to a show-cause notice is often treated as implied admission.
- Courts will not interfere under writ jurisdiction when effective remedies are available, unless there is clear illegality or breach of natural justice.
For the public sector, the ruling confirms that authorities are empowered to act against fraud in procurement processes. For private players, it’s a cautionary example of the severe consequences of falsifying credentials.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Was the blacklisting order passed without due process?
- No. A valid show-cause notice was issued. The contractor did not respond, and the forged document was verified. Therefore, principles of natural justice were not violated.
- Did the Court have grounds to interfere under Article 226?
- No. The High Court ruled that in the absence of procedural violation or lack of jurisdiction, it cannot interfere merely because the contractor is aggrieved.
- Is non-response to a show-cause notice legally significant?
- Yes. The Court held that silence in the face of a serious allegation can be construed as admission of guilt.
- Is an alternative remedy available?
- Yes. The Court noted that the petitioner can file an appeal against the blacklisting order under the applicable rules.
Case Title
Chitranjan Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
CWJC No. 3370 of 2024
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble The Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
- For Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Jay Prakash Singh
- For State: Mrs. Binita Singh (SC-28)
- For BSEIDC: Mr. Girijish Kumar
Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/a6dfdad0-8cf2-4424-8430-0cc280a65ff3.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.
