Rakesh Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6309 of 2025
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Rajeshwar Singh, R/o- Singh Mansion,
Gardanibagh, Mahadev Puri, Aam Bagicha, Dist.- Patna, P.S.- Gardanibagh,
P.O.- G.P.O. Patna, Pin-800001, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Building Constructions
Department, Government of Bihar, Vishwashriya Bhawan, Patna-800001,
Bihar.
2. The Executive Engineer, Gardanibagh Building Division, Bailey Road,
Patna-800001, Bihar.
3. The Joint Secretary, Building Constructions Department, Government of
Bihar, Vishwashriya Bhawan, Patna-800001, Bihar.
4. The Engineer in Chief, Building Constructions Department, Government of
Bihar, Vishwashriya Bhawan, Patna-800001, Bihar.
5. The Chief Engineer-Patna, Building Constructions Department, Government
of Bihar, Vishwashriya Bhawan, Patna-800001, Bihar.
6. The Assistant Engineer, Gardanibagh Building Division, Bailey Road,
Patna-800001, Bihar.
7. The Junior Engineer, Gardanibagh Building Division, Bailey Road, Patna-
800001, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ankur Apurv Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 07-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
2/12
following reliefs:
“i. To issue Writ in the nature of
Mandamus for directing the Respondents to not to
arbitrary exercise their power.
ii. To issue Writ in the nature of
Mandamus for directing the Respondent Authorities
to not to interfere in matters Sub-Judice before the
Competent Court at Patna District and Sessions
Court unless specific direction/order passed to act
upon.
iii. For issuance of the Writ in the nature
of Certiorari for Quashing of the order dt.-
09/12/2024 vide letter no.- 3016 Passed by
Respondent No.- 02 without any direction of
Respondent No.-01 and other subsequent arbitrary
orders passed by any respondents.
iv. For issuance of Writ in the nature of
Mandamus for directing the Respondent Authorities
to pay Damages to the petitioner against illegal
Debar causing irreparable monetary loss and mental
and physical agony as the same has been done
without issuing any show cause notice to the
petitioner.
v. For any other relief /reliefs for which
petitioner is entitled for.”
3. The present writ application arises out of the order
of debarment passed against the petitioner, a registered
contractor bearing Registration No. 18260982. The petitioner
was implicated in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 726 of 2024,
pursuant whereto the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna
cancelled the character certificate of the petitioner bearing No.
BCHC/2024/1111991 vide Letter No. 11562 dated 09.12.2024.
On the basis of the said communication, respondent no. 2, on
the very same day, issued Letter No. 3016 dated 09.12.2024

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
3/12
debarring the petitioner from participation in tenders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
solely on the basis of cancellation of character certificate,
respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass the impugned order of
debarment on the very same day without issuance of any show
cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
5. Learned counsel further submits that mere
pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for debarring
the petitioner from participating in tenders, particularly in
absence of any adjudication by a competent court. Learned
counsel also submits that the impugned order does not specify
the period of debarment and, thus, effectively operates for an
indefinite duration, rendering the same arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the factum
of lodging of F.I.R. dated 06.12.2024. It is further submitted
that submission of a valid character certificate is an essential
condition of the tender process to ensure that persons having
criminal antecedents are not awarded government contracts. It is
submitted that the character certificate of the petitioner was

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
4/12
cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated
08.12.2024, which has neither been challenged nor the
concerned authority has been impleaded, and, therefore, the
consequential action of debarment cannot be faulted.
7. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the respondent authorities
could have legally imposed a debarment upon the petitioner
without specifying any definite period for which such
debarment would remain operative.
8. From the materials brought on record, it appears
that the impugned order of debarment has been passed
immediately upon cancellation of the character certificate of the
petitioner by the police authorities. However, there is nothing on
record to indicate that any independent proceeding was initiated
by the respondent authorities prior to passing of the impugned
order or that the petitioner was ever put on notice regarding the
proposed action of debarment. Admittedly, no show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was
afforded to him before the impugned action was taken.
9. It is trite law that an order of blacklisting or
debarment carries serious civil consequences inasmuch as it
deprives him of the opportunity to participate in public contracts

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
5/12
and affects his business prospects and reputation. Such an order,
therefore, cannot be passed in a mechanical manner or merely
on the basis of a communication issued by another authority.
Even where the authority possesses the power to blacklist or
debar a contractor, such power has necessarily to be exercised
fairly, reasonably and in consonance with the principles of
natural justice.
10. Reference in this regard may also be made to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment
& Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in
(1975) 1 SCC 70 , wherein it has been held that blacklisting has
the effect of preventing a person from entering into lawful
relationship with the Government and, therefore, fair play in
action requires observance of natural justice before passing such
order. The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“ 12. Under Article 298 of the Constitution the
executive power of the Union and the State shall
extend to the carrying on of any trade and to the
acquisition, holding and disposal of property and the
making of contracts for any purpose. The State can
carry on executive function by making a law or
without making a law. The exercise of such powers
and functions in trade by the State is subject to Part
III of the Constitution. Article 14 speaks of equality
before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Equality of opportunity should apply to matters of

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
6/12
public contracts. The State has the right to trade.
The State has there the duty to observe equality. An
ordinary individual can choose not to deal with any
person. The Government cannot choose to exclude
persons by discrimination. The order of blacklisting
has the effect of depriving a person of equality of
opportunity in the matter of public contract. A
person who is on the approved list is unable to enter
into advantageous relations with the Government
because of the order of blacklisting. A person who
has been dealing with the Government in the matter
of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate
interest or expectation. When the State acts to the
prejudice of a person it has to be supported by
legality.
20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person
from the privilege and advantage of entering into
lawful relationship with the Government for
purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is
created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the
relevant authority is to have an objective
satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that
the person concerned should be given an opportunity
to represent his case before he is put on the
blacklist.”
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorkha Security
Services v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in
(2014) 9 SCC 105 , has categorically held that before passing an
order of blacklisting, the affected party must be specifically put
to notice not only of the allegations levelled against him but also

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
7/12
of the proposed action of blacklisting/debarment so as to enable
him to effectively respond to the same. Absence of such notice
would vitiate the action itself. The relevant part of the said order
reads as follows:
“ Necessity of serving show-cause notice as a
requisite of the principles of natural justice
16. It is a common case of the parties that the
blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause
notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and
does not even demand much amplification. The
necessity of compliance with the principles of
natural justice by giving the opportunity to the
person against whom action of blacklisting is sought
to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it.
With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil
consequences follow. It is described as “civil death”
of a person who is foisted with the order of
blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and
debars such a person from participating in
government tenders which means precluding him
from the award of government contracts.
….
Contents of the show-cause notice
21. The central issue, however, pertains to the
requirement of stating the action which is proposed
to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the
serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee
understand the precise case set up against him which
he has to meet. This would require the statement of
imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and
defaults he has committed, so that he gets an
opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement,
according to us, is the nature of action which is
proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should
also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out
that proposed action is not warranted in the given
case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are
not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to
blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
8/12
imperative, having regard to the fact that it is
harshest possible action.
22. The High Court has simply stated that the
purpose of show-cause notice is primarily to enable
the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action
is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is
justified to this extent. However, it is equally
important to mention as to what would be the
consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily
meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To
put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order
to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural
justice, a show-cause notice should meet the
following two requirements viz:
(i) The material/grounds to be stated which
according to the department necessitates an action;
(ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be
taken. It is this second requirement which the High
Court has failed to omit.
We may hasten to add that even if it is not
specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice but
it can clearly and safely be discerned from the
reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this
requirement.”
12. This Court further finds that the impugned order
does not prescribe any fixed duration for which the petitioner
shall remain debarred. An order of debarment, which does not
indicate any specific period, effectively results in exclusion of
the contractor for an indefinite period.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulja Industries
Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL & Ors. reported in
(2014) 14 SCC 731 , has held that blacklisting cannot be

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
9/12
permanent or for an indefinite duration and that the period of
debarment must satisfy the requirement of proportionality. The
authority while imposing such penalty is required to apply its
mind to the nature of allegations, gravity of misconduct and
proportionality of punishment. The relevant part of the said
order reads as follows:
“ 17. That apart, the power to blacklist a contractor
whether the contract be for supply of 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.
…...
20. It is also well settled that even though the right of
the writ petitioner is in the nature of a contractual
right, the manner, the method and the motive behind
the decision of the authority whether or not to enter
into a contract is subject to judicial review on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
10/12
touchstone of fairness, relevance, natural justice,
non-discrimination, equality and proportionality. All
these considerations that go to determine whether
the action is sustainable in law have been sanctified
by judicial pronouncements of this Court and are of
seminal importance in a system that is committed to
the rule of law. We do not consider it necessary to
burden this judgment by a copious reference to the
decisions on the subject. …
……
25. Suffice it to say that “debarment” is recognised
and often used as an effective method for disciplining
deviant suppliers/contractors who may have
committed acts of omission and commission or
frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of
records and other breaches of the regulations under
which such contracts were allotted. What is notable
is that the “debarment” is never permanent and the
period of debarment would invariably depend upon
the nature of the offence committed by the erring
contractor.”
14. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2021)1 SCC 804 , wherein it
has been reiterated that an order of blacklisting without
adherence to principles of natural justice cannot be sustained.
The relevant part of the said order reads as follow:
“ 12. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, there may
have been no need to go into the question of the
duration of the blacklisting, but for the arguments
addressed before us. An order of blacklisting
operates to the prejudice of a commercial person not
only in praesenti but also puts a taint which attaches
far beyond and may well spell the death knell of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
11/12
organisation/institution for all times to come
described as a civil death. The repercussions on the
appellant were clearly spelt out by it in the
representations as also in the writ petition, including
the consequences under the Rajasthan tender, where
it stood debarred expressly because of the present
impugned order. The possibility always remains that
if a proper show-cause notice had been given and the
reply furnished would have been considered in
accordance with law, even if the respondents decided
to blacklist the appellant, entirely different
considerations may have prevailed in their minds
especially with regard to the duration.”
15. In the present case, the impugned order neither
reflects any consideration with regard to proportionality nor
discloses any independent satisfaction recorded by the
respondent authority. The order appears to have been passed
solely on account of cancellation of the character certificate and
that too without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to
explain his stand. Such action, in the considered opinion of this
Court, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order of debarment
dated 09.12.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the concerned respondent authority to pass a
reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, specially
specifying the period of debarment, if so required.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6309 of 2025 dt.07-05-2026
12/12
17. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
allowed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.

(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 13.05.2026
Transmission Date