Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a judgment dated December 20, 2024, the Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a disqualified contractor who sought to challenge the award of a government handling and transportation contract to another party. The petitioner was previously blacklisted for five years by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation (BSFC), and her challenge was found to be without merit.

The case revolved around a tender (NIT No. 723 dated 08.06.2024) issued by the BSFC for handling and transporting food grains. The petitioner had earlier participated in a similar tender but failed to finalize the agreement due to cancellation of lease agreements by the truck owners whose vehicles were listed in her bid. Even after being given extended time, she failed to comply.

The Corporation eventually issued a new tender. The petitioner did not apply under the new tender because she had already been blacklisted, and her disqualification was previously upheld by the High Court in another case.

The main argument put forward was that other contractors were allowed to replace their trucks after signing the agreement, and that she should have been treated similarly. The petitioner relied on Clause 11(xxv) of the tender document to support this argument. However, the Court clarified that the clause allows replacement only after the execution of the agreement. In the petitioner’s earlier case, she had failed to sign the agreement in the first place.

Furthermore, the petitioner did not implead the successful contractors or handling agents whose selection she was challenging. The Court noted that serious allegations were made without including or notifying the affected parties.

Importantly, the petitioner’s grievance appeared to stem from her prior disqualification and blacklisting, which had already been upheld by the Court in an earlier judgment. The Court held that the petitioner’s challenge to the new contract award was driven by discontent and was legally unsustainable.

As a result, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, calling it “misconceived.”

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment emphasizes that once a party has been blacklisted for valid reasons and that blacklisting has been upheld by a competent court, they cannot challenge the outcome of a subsequent tender process. It reinforces the importance of compliance with all tender conditions, including timely execution of agreements and valid documentation.

The Court also highlighted procedural integrity, pointing out that any party raising allegations against others must implead those parties in the case. Filing a writ without including the affected individuals or entities undermines due process and renders the petition incomplete.

This decision strengthens legal clarity around blacklisting consequences and maintains the sanctity of competitive tendering processes. It ensures that disqualified contractors cannot disrupt future tender outcomes merely out of dissatisfaction with past rulings.

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

• Can a blacklisted contractor challenge the award of a new tender to others?
  • No. The Court held that being blacklisted disqualifies the petitioner from questioning the new contract process.
• Is replacement of leased vehicles permissible before executing an agreement?
  • No. Clause 11(xxv) allows replacement after agreement execution, not before.
• Is a writ petition valid if necessary parties (e.g., awarded contractors) are not impleaded?
  • No. The Court held that the absence of such parties makes the petition defective and non-maintainable.
• Was there any legal ground to invoke Article 226 in this case?
  • No. The Court found no extraordinary or valid reason for invoking writ jurisdiction.

Case Title
Sita Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19215 of 2024

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Chief Justice)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the BSFC: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Amit Prakash (GA-13); Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate

Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/cf71e24f-7511-4d4a-b1b9-d0b32801ab6e.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.