Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a recent case, the Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a private construction company that had been blacklisted for ten years by the authorities. The petitioner had challenged the blacklisting, claiming that it was carried out without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

The dispute arose out of a tender process for a government contract. The petitioner had participated in a bid invited by the Gaya Municipal Corporation. According to the tender requirements, all bidders were required to submit term deposit receipts of specified amounts as security. The petitioner submitted documents claiming to have three term deposits of Rs. 2,95,000/-, Rs. 2,30,000/-, and Rs. 3,30,000/-, all issued by the Lakhisarai Post Office and pledged to the Commissioner of the Gaya Municipal Corporation.

The petitioner claimed to have qualified both technically and financially and was declared the lowest bidder (L1). However, upon verification, the authorities found discrepancies in the term deposit documents. The Gaya Municipal Corporation contacted the issuing post office, which revealed that the actual values of the term deposits were much lower—Rs. 29,500/-, Rs. 23,000/-, and Rs. 33,000/- respectively.

This major discrepancy led to the cancellation of the petitioner’s bid and eventual blacklisting for a period of ten years on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation.

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, alleging that the blacklisting was arbitrary and that they were not given a fair hearing. However, the court noted that a counter affidavit had been filed by the postal authorities clearly establishing that the original term deposit accounts were indeed of the lower amounts, as initially suspected. They also submitted the original applications and pay slips related to the accounts, as well as records showing the actual deposits.

Interestingly, the petitioner failed to provide any solid evidence in rebuttal. Their response was limited to vague allegations that the counter affidavit might have been manipulated. More importantly, the petitioner never submitted the original term deposit certificates, which could have clarified the matter. The court found this conduct to be evasive and unacceptable.

The High Court condemned the petitioner’s attempt to mislead the court and described the writ petition as a clear abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 15,000, payable to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. The court also authorized the recovery of this amount as if it were arrears of land revenue if not paid within two weeks.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling highlights the seriousness with which Indian courts view fraudulent practices in public procurement. The decision sends a strong message that any attempt to manipulate tender processes through fake documents or misrepresentation will attract strict action, including long-term blacklisting and financial penalties.

For government bodies and public authorities, the judgment reaffirms their power to verify and cancel bids based on discrepancies and fraud. It also sets a precedent that procedural fairness must be balanced with public interest—especially when clear evidence of fraud is on record.

For private contractors, the case is a warning against tampering with tender requirements. Not only can such acts lead to disqualification, but they may also result in reputational damage, blacklisting, and even financial liability.

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

• Whether the petitioner was wrongfully blacklisted without a hearing?
  • The Court held that the petitioner had committed clear fraud by misrepresenting the value of term deposits. The overwhelming documentary evidence against the petitioner justified the blacklisting.
• Did the petitioner submit fake or manipulated term deposit documents?
  • Yes. The court accepted the postal authority’s affidavit and documents which showed that the term deposits were far below the claimed amounts.
• Was the writ petition maintainable?
  • No. The Court observed that the petition was an abuse of the judicial process, filed without proper evidence, and with evasive responses.
• What was the consequence of the petitioner’s conduct?
  • The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 15,000 payable to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. The court allowed recovery proceedings through the District Magistrate if unpaid.

Case Title
M/s P.K. Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
CWJC No. 4845 of 2024

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Shyam Kishore, Advocate – For the Petitioner
Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (ASG) – For the Respondents
Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel – For the Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGC – For the Respondents

Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/43f67b1c-7af9-4768-97b6-9df49b418b56.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.