Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court has quashed a show cause notice issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, which threatened to blacklist and debar a construction company from future government tenders. The court held that the notice was not legally sustainable because the officer who issued it had no statutory authority to debar the contractor, and there was no valid provision in the applicable rules permitting such an action.
The petitioner, a construction company, had entered into an agreement with the Rural Works Department for a road construction project under the New Maintenance Policy, 2018. However, the project was delayed, leading the department to issue a show cause notice asking why the petitioner should not be declared a defaulter and debarred from future contracts.
The petitioner challenged this notice, arguing that the Engineer-in-Chief had no legal power to issue such a notice and that the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules, 2007 did not provide any provision for “debarment.” It only allows for blacklisting or suspension, which are legally different terms with different procedures and consequences.
The High Court observed that under Indian legal principles, a writ petition is usually not maintainable against a mere show cause notice unless it is issued without authority or is fundamentally flawed. In this case, the Court found that the notice lacked legal foundation because no statutory provision allowed the officer to debar the contractor. Moreover, in their defense, the government failed to identify any provision under which such debarment could be lawfully issued.
The Court cited two landmark Supreme Court decisions—Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana and Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha—to reaffirm that action taken without statutory authority cannot stand. Since the notice threatened serious consequences (such as debarment) without a legal basis, it had to be struck down.
As a result, the Patna High Court set aside the show cause notice and directed the authorities that if they intend to initiate any action in the future, it must be done strictly under relevant legal provisions and within three months, if applicable.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is important for contractors and private firms working on government infrastructure projects in Bihar. It sends a strong message that administrative authorities cannot exceed their powers or bypass legal procedures when taking punitive action.
The decision safeguards contractors from arbitrary and unlawful decisions by government departments. It emphasizes the importance of following due process, especially when the consequences of departmental action—like blacklisting or debarment—can severely affect a firm’s livelihood and reputation.
It also clarifies that unless the governing rules specifically empower an official to take certain actions (like debarment), any such move will not stand legal scrutiny.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether a show cause notice can be quashed in writ jurisdiction: Yes, if the authority issuing it lacks legal power or the notice is contrary to statutory rules.
- Whether the Engineer-in-Chief had the power to debar a contractor: No, the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules, 2007 do not authorize debarment by this officer.
- Did the 2007 Rules provide for debarment of contractors for incomplete work? No, they provide only for blacklisting and suspension.
- Decision: The show cause notice dated 11.07.2023 was quashed. The Court allowed the department to initiate fresh proceedings under valid legal provisions, if applicable, within three months.
Judgments Referred by Parties
Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28
Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
Same as above.
Case Title
Vijay Raj Mewar Construction Company Private Limited v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
CWJC No. 14521 of 2023
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Ansh Prasad, Mr. Sukarn Gop
For the Respondents: Mr. Anjani Kumar (AAG 4), Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamvar (A.C. to AAG -4)
Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/4090632a-3888-43ba-93e9-3ff334166111.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.
