In a significant decision, the Patna High Court has set aside a 10-year blacklisting order issued against a contractor by the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (BSEIDC). The Court held that the blacklisting order and related actions were unsustainable, especially when a similar case had already been decided in favor of another aggrieved party.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The petitioner, a registered contractor, was blacklisted for ten years by BSEIDC on allegations of submitting a false experience certificate in a government tender process. The blacklisting was based on the Corporation’s Contractors Registration Rules, 2012, as amended in its 41st Board of Directors meeting. The process involved issuing a show-cause notice, passing a blacklisting order, and rejecting the petitioner’s appeal.
The petitioner challenged the following:
- The show-cause notice dated 25.01.2023.
- The blacklisting order dated 11.05.2023.
- The rejection of the appeal dated 28.06.2023.
He argued that the Chief Engineer had no authority to initiate such actions and that the decisions were arbitrary and without proper justification.
Importantly, the Court noted that a similar matter had already been adjudicated in CWJC No. 9769 of 2023 on 28.08.2023, where the same kind of blacklisting decision was quashed under similar circumstances. The respondents did not dispute this parallel.
Taking this into account, the Bench held that the impugned orders in the present case should also be set aside on the same grounds as the earlier judgment. Accordingly, the entire process of blacklisting, including the issuance of the show-cause notice and the subsequent appeal rejection, was declared void and set aside.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the requirement for government bodies to follow fair, legal, and transparent procedures while taking punitive actions like blacklisting. It protects the rights of contractors against arbitrary and overreaching actions by authorities. The case sets a precedent ensuring that contractors are not blacklisted without proper due process or lawful delegation of authority.
For the general public and government agencies, the judgment serves as a reminder that administrative decisions must be rooted in law and should respect the principles of natural justice. It is particularly relevant in procurement and contract management where blacklisting can severely affect a contractor’s livelihood.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the Chief Engineer had legal authority to initiate blacklisting proceedings
✔ The Court found that the actions taken were beyond legal authority and thus not sustainable. - Whether the blacklisting order complied with the Corporation’s rules and principles of natural justice
✔ The Court held the process to be flawed and arbitrary. - Whether previous identical case law applied to the present case
✔ Yes, the Court applied the reasoning from an earlier identical decision in CWJC No. 9769 of 2023. - Relief granted to the petitioner
✔ All impugned orders (show-cause, blacklisting, and appeal rejection) were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- CWJC No. 9769 of 2023, decided on 28.08.2023 by the Patna High Court (identical matter not disputed by respondents).
Case Title
Madan Kumar v. Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number
CWJC No. 14271 of 2023
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan — Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Girijish Kumar — Advocate for the Respondents
Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/0f500a75-764a-4be3-9568-2ba89f5d8a0f.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.
