Patna High Court Quashes Indefinite Blacklisting for Violation of Natural Justice

Patna High Court Quashes Indefinite Blacklisting for Violation of Natural Justice

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court set aside an order of the Rural Works Department that had indefinitely debarred a contractor from participating in future tenders.

The petitioner, a registered contractor, was aggrieved by two orders:

  1. Order dated 07.07.2021 — Debarring the petitioner indefinitely from future contracts without issuing any show cause notice or following proper legal procedure.
  2. Order dated 11.01.2023 — Passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal/representation and confirming the earlier debarment order, despite the case having been remanded earlier by the High Court for fresh consideration.

This was the second round of litigation. In the first round, the High Court had remanded the matter to the department with directions to reconsider after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner, in his written reply dated 08.09.2022, had submitted a chart of maintenance work and related payments to show compliance with contractual obligations.

However, the final order of 11.01.2023 ignored this material entirely. The Court observed that there was neither any reference to nor any analysis of the chart or payments in the decision, which amounted to failing to consider the petitioner’s defence.

The Court strongly criticized the State authorities for repeatedly treating the issuance of a show cause notice as a mere formality, without genuinely evaluating the responses received. It noted that this systemic lapse was leading to repeated litigation, making the State one of the biggest litigants in courts.

The Court therefore:

  • Allowed the writ petition.
  • Imposed ₹10,000 costs on the State, to be deposited with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
  • Directed the authority to issue a fresh, detailed show cause notice containing all material information within one month.
  • Directed that the petitioner be given one month to respond, and a speaking order be passed within three months after receipt of the reply, specifically addressing each contention — including the maintenance work chart — and determining whether there was any actual deficiency.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision is significant for both contractors and government authorities in Bihar:

  • For contractors: It reinforces that blacklisting orders must follow due process, and contractors’ defences must be genuinely considered.
  • For authorities: It warns that ignoring responses to show cause notices will not be tolerated, and procedural lapses will attract judicial interference and even monetary costs.
  • For governance: It highlights a systemic issue in administrative decision-making, urging departments to follow proper procedures to avoid unnecessary litigation.

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

  • Issue 1: Can a contractor be debarred indefinitely without a valid show cause notice and consideration of defence?
    Decision: No. Such action violates the principles of natural justice.
  • Issue 2: Is merely issuing a notice without considering the reply sufficient compliance?
    Decision: No. Authorities must evaluate and address each contention in their order.
  • Issue 3: Should authorities issue detailed, material-specific show cause notices?
    Decision: Yes. The Court mandated detailed notices to ensure fair opportunity for defence.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
No specific citations listed, but principles of natural justice were central.

Case Title
Parmar Enterprises v. State of Bihar & Others

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3280 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
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate; Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay, GA-5

Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/5f3933f0-6602-4b4e-9c51-8fdd4ee12043.pdf&search=Debarment

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.

Aditya Kumar

Aditya Kumar is a dedicated and detail-oriented legal intern with a strong academic foundation in law and a growing interest in legal research and writing. He is currently pursuing his legal education with a focus on litigation, policy, and public law. Aditya has interned with reputed law offices and assisted in drafting legal documents, conducting research, and understanding court procedures, particularly in the High Court of Patna. Known for his clarity of thought and commitment to learning, Aditya contributes to Samvida Law Associates by simplifying complex legal topics for public understanding through well-researched blog posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News