M/s Shailcon Construction vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4915 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010275632026
======================================================
M/s Shailcon Construction through its Partner Akshay Kumar, Male, aged
about 45 years, Son of Kamleshwar Rai, Resident of Village- Rasauli, P.O.-
Kateya, P.S.- Katiya, District- Gopalganj, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer -In- Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer -In- Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division- Siwan-
1, District- Siwan, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division-
Gopalganj- 2, District- Gopalganj, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate General
Dr. M.V. Chandra, AAG-2
Mr. G.R. Shahi, A.C. to A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)
Date : 06-11-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
2/10
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
“(i) Quashing of the Notice to Show
Cause as contained in Letter No. 123 dated
08.01.2026 (Annexure P/4) by which, the
Engineer In-Chief Cum Registering Authority
has required the petitioner to submit reply within
15-days against the contemplated action of
Blacklisting under Clause 11 (Ka) (vii) of the
Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 for
the allegation of submission of False Payment
Certificate(s) in a bidding process;
(ii) Quashing of the consequential
order bearing Memo No. 1295 dated 09.03.2026
(Annexure P/6) by which, the Engineer In-Chief,
without considering the reply filed by the
petitioner, travelling beyond the relied upon
provision(s) in the Show Cause Notice and
taking into consideration fresh material(s) has
blacklisted the Registration of the petitioner for
a period of 10-years;
(iii) Restraining the Respondents from
giving effect to the order bearing Memo No.
1295 dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P/6) during
the pendency of the present writ application
and/or without the leave of this Hon’ble Court.”
3. The case of the petitioner is that on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
3/10
respondents coming out with a Notice Inviting Tender no.RWD/
MMGSY (Awashesh-Gen) / HQ /ET /2025 /07 on 12.7.2025 in
connection with construction of high level bridge and six years
maintenance work, the petitioner, who is a registered contractor
along with others submitted his bid and participated in the
tender process. A show cause notice dated 8.1.2026 was issued
by the Engineer-in-Chief (Headquarters), Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar to the petitioner stating
therein that along with his tender, the petitioner had submitted a
payment certificate said to have been issued by the Executive
Engineer, Rural Development Department on 16.5.2024 which
on verification was found to be forged. The petitioner was asked
to file his reply within 15 days as to why his registration
no.WRD190625C1PF24 not be blacklisted on account of
misconduct under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules
2007 (‘the Rules of 2007’ in short).
4. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause
notice on 19.1.2026 stating therein that no forgery has been
committed by him and that the said certificate was handed over
by an employee of the Rural Works Department, Works
Division, Siwan-1 to an employee of the petitioner. It was
further stated by the petitioner that the amount mentioned in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
4/10
certificate, genuineness of which is doubted, matches with the
tax deducted at source as provided in the 26AS certificate and
which has been confirmed by the petitioner's Chartered
Accountant.
5. The respondent-authorities came out with the order
impugned dated 9.3.2026 blacklisting the petitioner for a period
of 10 years.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the respondents failed to take into consideration the points
raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice and
though the registration of the petitioner is valid till 18.6.2030,
by the order impugned, he has been blacklisted for a period of
10 years which goes beyond the period of registration and
which is impermissible.
7. It was further submitted that the remedy of appeal
as provided under Rule 11(e) of the Rules of 2007 is not an
efficacious remedy. Further, so far as the departmental letter
no.201 dated 14.3.2016 prescribing the punishment of
blacklisting of 10 years is concerned and which has been relied
upon by the respondents, vires of the same has been challenged
by the petitioner in a separate writ application being CWJC
no.5016 of 2026. In support of his contentions, reliance has
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
5/10
been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
judgment dated 7.9.2021 passed in CWJC no.12736 of 2021
(Ramanand Rai vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) as also on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Institute
of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L. K. Ratna and Others;
(1986) 4 SCC 537, Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of
India and Others; (2010) 13 SCC 427 and Krishnadatt Awasthy
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; (2025) 7 SCC 545.
8. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. Referring to the counter affidavit
filed, it is submitted that on participating in the tender process
for execution of the work in question, the petitioner submitted a
fake payment certificate and on the same being discovered, he
was disqualified by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee on
16.12.2025. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice
and on filing his reply, taking into consideration the contents
thereof, the respondents passed the order dated 9.3.2026
blacklisting the petitioner for a period of 10 years. It was
submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned and
so far as the order no.201 dated 14.3.2016 of the Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar is concerned,
there is no illegality in the same. The punishment for
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
6/10
submission of incorrect documents for succeeding in the tender
is already provided under Clause 11(ka) of the Rules of 2007
and it was pursuant to the judgment in Kulja Industries Limited
vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others; (2014) 14 SCC 731 that
the said order prescribing the punishment has been passed by
the department. There is no merit in the writ application and no
illegality in the order impugned. Thus, the writ application be
dismissed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, it transpires that
pursuant to the petitioner having submitted the payment
certificate (along with the bid) purportedly issued by the
Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department, the said
certificate on being sent for verification was found to be forged.
10. The petitioner was issued with a show cause
notice on 8.1.2026 asking him to file his reply within 15 days as
to why he be not proceeded against under the Rules of 2007 for
having submitted a forged payment certificate and be
blacklisted.
11. The petitioner submitted his reply on 19.1.2026
stating therein that so far as the certificate is concerned, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
7/10
same had been handed over by some employee working in the
office of the Rural Works Department, Works Division, Siwan-
01 to an employee of the petitioner. He further states that there
is no discrepancy in the figures in the said certificate and as a
contractor does not have the sample signature of the authorities,
so he is unable to compare the signature on the certificate to
know as to whether the same is genuine or not.
12. It transpires that a copy of the said certificate was
sent to the respondent concerned ie the Executive Engineer,
Rural Works Department, Works Division, Siwan-1 who in his
reply contained in memo no.1732 dated 22.9.2025 addressed to
the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works
Division, Gopalganj-2 informed that the certificate did not
contain his signature, the office register did not show the same
to have been issued from his office and was forged.
13. Taking all these materials into consideration, the
reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, was
rejected.
14. On the submissions made in connection with the
departmental letter no.201 dated 14.3.2016, vires of the same is
not a subject matter of the instant application. Neither the
petitioner has sought any relief against the said letter in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
8/10
instant application nor did he lay much stress in his argument
with respect to the same. Leaving the issue with respect to the
legality of the same open it may only be observed here that
Rule 11 of the Rules of 2007 itself provide the circumstances
under which the name of the registered contractor may be
blacklisted and the same includes submission of forged
document.
15. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same are with
respect to the proposition that in all administrative decisions, a
quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusion. There can be no dispute with respect to the
proposition of law in the decisions cited, however it may be
mentioned that besides the order impugned containing reasons,
the allegations levelled against the petitioner of having used a
forged document to succeed in obtaining a tender and the
purported author of the document having categorically stated
that the document is not genuine, in the opinion of the Court,
the charge levelled against the petitioner is quite serious.
16. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kulja Industries Limited (supra) has held as follows:
“17. That apart, the power to blacklist a
contractor whether the contract be for supply of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
9/10
material or equipment or for the execution of
any other work whatsoever is in our opinion
inherent in the party allotting the contract.
There is no need for any such power being
specifically conferred by statute or reserved by
contractor. That is because "blacklisting"
simply signifies a business decision by which
the party affected by the breach decides not to
enter into any contractual relationship with the
party committing the breach. Between two
private parties the right to take any such
decision is absolute and untrammelled by any
constraints whatsoever. The freedom to contract
or not to contract is unqualified in the case of
private parties. But any such decision is subject
to judicial review when the same is taken by the
State or any of its instrumentalities. This implies
that any such decision will be open to scrutiny
not only on the touchstone of the principles of
natural justice but also on the doctrine of
proportionality. A fair hearing to the party
being blacklisted thus becomes an essential
precondition for a proper exercise of the power
and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant
thereto. The order itself being reasonable, fair
and proportionate to the gravity of the offence
is similarly examinable by a writ court.”
17. So far as the order impugned in the instant case is
concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the same contains
Patna High Court CWJC No.4915 of 2026 dt.06-11-2026
10/10
good reasons for passing the order of blacklisting of the
petitioner for a period of 10 years.
18. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
stated herein above, the Court finds no illegality in the order
impugned and the application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ): I agree.
(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 21.09.2026
Uploading Date 06.11.2026
Transmission Date N/A