Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a Class-I contractor who challenged his blacklisting by the Bihar Rural Works Department. The contractor had participated in a bid process under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY-III) and was later blacklisted for allegedly submitting false documents related to key plant and equipment.
The petitioner had submitted online bids for three road construction packages in response to two tenders dated 28.08.2023. Initially, he was declared the lowest bidder (L-1) after technical scrutiny. However, the entire bid process was later canceled by the department on 09.02.2024.
Subsequently, on 23.02.2024, the department issued a show-cause notice alleging that the petitioner had submitted incorrect documents to manipulate the bid process. The notice gave seven days to respond, failing which an ex-parte order of blacklisting for four years would be passed.
The petitioner received the notice via registered post on 04.03.2024—after the seven-day reply window had expired. On the same day, he submitted a written reply, but the department proceeded to blacklist him on 30.03.2024, claiming it had not received any clarification.
The petitioner challenged the blacklisting, arguing that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond, violating natural justice. He also questioned the subsequent rejection of his technical bid in a meeting held on 22.02.2024.
However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to support his denial of the allegations. While he claimed to have submitted a reply on 04.03.2024, there was no official stamp or clear acknowledgment of receipt from the department.
The High Court emphasized that judicial review in contractual matters is limited to examining fundamental errors in law and procedure, not the merits of the administrative decision itself. Citing Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, the Court held that when decisions are taken in public interest and without malice, courts should not interfere even if there are minor procedural lapses.
Ultimately, the Court held that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007. As no convincing violation of law or fundamental justice was shown, the writ petition was dismissed.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reaffirms that public contracts involve commercial decisions, and courts should not intervene unless there is manifest injustice. It also highlights the importance of proper documentation and timely communication by bidders in government tenders. Contractors must ensure their submissions are accurate and verifiable, or risk being blacklisted—a sanction that can severely impact their business.
Additionally, the ruling clarifies that mere denial of wrongdoing, without evidence, is insufficient to overturn a blacklisting order. Departments are justified in acting firmly against misrepresentation in tender processes, especially when public funds and infrastructure projects are involved.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Was the blacklisting order passed without proper opportunity of hearing?
❖ Court held that while the reply was allegedly submitted, it was not proven or acknowledged, and no strong procedural violation was found. - Did the petitioner provide evidence disproving the charges?
❖ No, the Court found mere denial insufficient without supporting documents. - Is judicial review available in contract-based decisions like tenders?
❖ Yes, but limited to cases of fundamental legal or procedural errors. Not applicable where decisions are commercial and bona fide. - Is an alternative remedy of appeal available under the Bihar Rules?
❖ Yes, and the petitioner was advised to pursue that route instead of writ.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517]
Case Title
Titu Badwal v. The State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
CWJC No. 7289 of 2024
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble The Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sriram Krishna, Mr. Amarjeet, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh
For the Respondents (State): Mr. Standing Counsel 11
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.
