Dharmendra Kumar vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13129 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010818152026
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar Son of Late Jairam Sharma, Resident of Village -
Khudauri, P.S. Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna, Patna.
3. The Engineer-In-Chief, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer (Planning and Monitoring and Geology), Minor
Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Superintending Engineer (Headquarters) Monitoring, Minor Irrigation
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate General
Dr. Vijay Chandra Maurya, AAG-2
Mr. Situ Sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-11-2026
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the following prayers:
“That this is an application on behalf of
the petitioner above named seeking issuance of

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
2/19
appropriate writ, rule or direction for;
(i) Quashing of the non speaking and
unreasoned order bearing Memo No. 4967 dated
28.07.20226 (Annexure P/15) corresponding to
Appeal No. 62/2026 passed by the Secretary, Minor
Water Resources Department whereby, the appeal
filed by the petitioner against the order of
blacklisting for a period of 10 years has been
rejected without considering any of the grounds
taken in the Memo of Appeal; and
(ii) Restraining the respondents from
taking any coercive action by giving effect to the
order bearing Memo No. 4967 dated 28.07.2026
(Annexure P/15) corresponding to the Appeal No. 62
of 2026 during the pendency of the present writ
application and/or the without the leave of this
Hon'ble Court.”
2. The facts which are required to be noted for the
purpose of this judgment and also highlighted by the Mr.
Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner are that an ex
parte order was passed by the In-charge, Chief Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Department dated 14.03.2023, whereby the petitioner
was black listed for a period of ten years. The order dated
14.03.2023 became the subject matter of a writ petition being
C.W.J.C. no. 4661 of 2023 which writ petition was disposed of
by this Court on 03.05.2023, granting liberty to the respondents
to proceed in accordance with law after giving due opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner by taking note of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Food
Corporation of India and Anr., reported in 2021(2) SCC 551

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
3/19
and later decision in the case of Isolators and Isolators through
its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Anr ., reported in
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330 (Para-34) .
3. The respondents accordingly issued a fresh show
cause notice dated 09.05.2025 requiring the petitioner to submit
reply within 15 days as to why petitioner be not blacklisted in
terms of the relevant provisions of Bihar Contractors
Registration Rules, 2007. According to Mr. Ranjan the
petitioner challenged the above show cause notice in C.W.J.C.
No. 10828 of 2025. He also stated that the petitioner had also
filed M.J.C. No. 2012 of 2025 on 16.06.2025 seeking initiation
of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violating
the order dated 03.05.2023. He submited that during the
pendency of C.W.J.C. No. 10828 of 2025, the Registering
Authority vide letter dated 07.08.2025 decided to proceed with
the adjudication of show cause notice and granted a last
opportunity to the peititoner to submit a reply to the same. The
petitioner accordingly submitted a
reply/representation/objection dated 18.08.2025. It was the
submission of Mr. Ranjan that the petitioner had also in the
representation/objection requested an option/opportunity to

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
4/19
cross examine the author of the report/letter on the basis of
which it is alleged that petitioner had submitted a false
experience certificate for securing the tender. He stated that the
respondents without adverting to the request of the petitioner,
vide letter dated 17.09.2025 required the petitioner to appear
with the relevant records/evidences pertaining to the show cause
notice and explain the same. He submitted that the Chief
Engineer ignoring all the contentions raised by the petitioner in
the reply issued letter dated 10.12.2025 proceeded to blacklist
the petitioner for a period of 10 years in terms of Clause 11 of
the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 read with Order
No. 154 dated 18.06.2015. According to Mr. Ranjan, the
petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
510 of 2026. The said writ petition was disposed of by this
Court on 02.02.2026 relegating the petitioner to the
Secretary/Appellate Authority in terms of the Bihar Contractors
Registration Rules, 2007. Accordingly, the writ petition bearing
C.W.J.C. No.10828 of 2025 was permitted to be withdrawn vide
order dated 16.04.2026. According to Mr. Ranjan, the petitioner
had also filed SLP against the order dated 02.02.2026. The said
SLP came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2026. He
stated the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Secretary,

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
5/19
Minor Water Resources Department under Clause 11 of the
Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 challenging the
order of blacklisting contained in order dated 10.12.2025.
According to learned counsel, the Secretary vide order dated
28.07.2026 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and
affirmed the order dated 10.12.2025 blacklisting the petitioner
for a period of 10 years. His submissions against the impugned
orders are primarily as under:
(i) The registration of the petitioner under the
Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 has already
expired on 17.02.2024 and therefore, no order could have
been passed in terms of the said Rules.
(ii) The Chief Engineer who passed the
impugned order as the Registering Authority had no
jurisdiction to pass such an order in view of the fact that
pursuant to the expiry of the registration of the
undersigned/appellant on 17.12.2024 he ceased to be the
Registering Authority to exercise any power under the
2007 Rules.
(iii) The impugned order has been passed
travelling beyond the allegations in the show cause
notice and taking into consideration those provisions and

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
6/19
penal sections which were not referred to in the show
cause notice.
(iv) The reliance placed on Office Order no.
154 dated 18.06.2015 for imposing penalty makes the
order unsustainable for the reason that Office Order No.
154 dated 18.06.2015 cannot be the basis for imposing a
penalty, in as much as the same having not been issued in
the name of the Governor of Bihar, it could not be treated
to be a decision of the State Government and further the
said order has not even been notified in the Gazette of
Bihar.
(v) The impugned order has been passed on
the allegation of forged/fabricated certificate stated to
have been proved on the mere ipse dixit of the
Department without anyone called to prove the
document, which is alleged to be forged on the basis of
the alleged report.
(vi) Further the blacklisting for a period of 10
years is akin to permanent blacklisting, which is
impermissible. He has relied upon the following
judgments in support of his submission: 2014 (14) SCC
731 ( M/s Kulja Industries Limited Vrs. Chief General

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
7/19
Manager Western Telcom Project BSNL & Ors.) , 2012
(11) SCC 257 (M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. Vrs. Union
of India & Anr.) and 2023 (6) SCC 1 (State Bank of
India & Ors. Vrs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.) .
4. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Advocate General
appearing for the respondents would contest the submissions
made by Mr. Prabhat Ranjan by stating that the impugned order
passed by the Secretary, Minor Water Resource Department on
an appeal application filed by the petitioner against the order of
the blacklisting issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Water
Resources Department Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 10.12.2025
is as per the provisions contained in the Bihar Contractors
Registration Rules, 2007 and order No. 154 dated 18.06.2015
which is a well considered and a reasoned order.
5. He stated that the petitioner was found guilty of
submitting false and forged experience certificate while
submitting his bid in a tender and was accordingly, blacklisted
by the competent authority under the Bihar Contractors
Registration Rules, 2007. No leniency can be shown to the
petitioner in such a serious matter for submitting the forged
paper in the tender. He also stated that the submission of Mr.
Ranjan that the registration having expired on 07.02.2024, no

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
8/19
order could have been passed for blacklisting is a misconceived
argument as the blacklisting is for submitting a forged and
fabricated experience certificate for procuring the work which
action is different and at variance with the registration, as a
contractor under the Rules of 2007. According to him,
indepdnent of registration the respondents can blacklist a
contractor for good valid reasons and hence, the order passed by
the respondents cannot be contested. He seeks the dismissal of
the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
the short issue which arises for consideration is whether the
impugned orders passed by the Chief Engineer/Appellate
Authority dated dated 10.12.2025 and 28.07.2026 are justified
in the facts of this case. We have already reproduced the
submissions made by Mr. Prabhat Ranjan challenging the
impugned orders. It must be noted for the purpose of
completeness that Mr. Ranjan has not made any submission on
the merit of allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner
had submitted false and fabricated experience certificate in the
tender under Nawada Division issued under NIT No. 09/2021-
22 for the Renovation of Budhwara Ahar Pine Scheme. It is a
case where one of the competitive bidder namely Amrendra

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
9/19
Kumar filed a complaint against the petitioner for furnishing
false and fabricated experience certificate issued by Executive
Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Aurangabad under Letter No. 958
dated 08.08.2021 which work executed by M/s Madhya Bihar
Technology Pvt. Ltd. Under Agreement No. 07F2/2021-22. Mr.
Ranjan’s submission is primarily that the registration under the
Bihar Contractors Registration Rules had already expired on
17.02.2024 and therefore, no order could be passed in terms of
the said Rules. Though the submission looks appealing on a first
blush but on a deeper consideration, it is clear that the subject
matter of the show cause notice/the impugned orders was for
submitting a forged/fabricated experience certificate having
executed a work against the Tender Invitation Notice
No.09/2021-22 for the Minor Irrigation, Nawada. Though the
registration of the petitioner under the Rules of 2007 had
expired much thereafter i.e. on 17.02.2024, but much before that
date in 2022 itself action was initiated to inquire into the aspect
of submitting the forged and fabricated certificate by the
petitioner resulting in the order dated 14.03.2023 of blacklising.
The said order became the subject matter of challenge and the
same was set aside. In any case, the impugned orders are in
continuance of the action initiated in the year 2022, that is much

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
10/19
before the expiry of registration on 17.02.2024 so the argument
is unmeritorious. In any case, the subject matter of a show cause
notice for blacklisting is different from expiry of registration
under the Rules of 2007. In other words, the action of
blacklisting has no connection/relation with the registration of
the petitioner under the Rules of 2007. A registration under the
Rules of 2007, recognizes the contractor to bid for tender in the
department, but the expiry of the same precludes the contractor
to bid for tender but the same is not a bar for the authorities to
take action against a contractor for certain
omission/commission, as in this case, to secure a tender through
forged and fabricated document. It follows, the employer is with
its right to exercise the power of blacklisting, which power
arises from the relation of the parties. Hence, this plea of Mr.
Ranjan is liable to be rejected.
7. One of the plea of Mr. Ranjan was also that the
impugned decision of the respondents is without specifying the
allegation and penal provisions in the show cause notice and as
such beyond the same. It is a fact that this litigation has a
chequered history. In one of the order issued on 10.12.2025
which became the subject matter of this writ petition a reference
is made to the Order No. 154 dated 18.06.2015. The said order

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
11/19
became the subject matter of the appeal before the Appellate
Authority wherein the second impugned order dated 28.07.2026
is passed. In that sense, the proceedings which culminated in the
order dated 28.07.2026 having arisen from the show cause
notice dated 09.05.2025 which resulted in the impugned order
dated 10.12.2025, wherein a reference is made to the Order No.
154 dated 18.06.2015, it can be presumed and rightly so that the
petitioner was put to notice and was aware of the fact that the
impugned action against the petitioner was primarily relatable to
the Rules of 2007 read with Sub Clause (4) of Clause 8 of Order
No. 154 dated 18.06.2015 and as such, no prejudice has been
caused to the petitioner for not referring to the Order No. 154
dated 18.06.2015 in the show cause notice.
8. One of the submissions of Mr. Ranjan is that the
Office Order No. 154 dated 18.06.2015 imposing penalty makes
the order unsustainable and/or could not have been the basis for
imposing penalty as the same was not issued in the name of the
Governor of Bihar. That apart, according to him, the same order
is restricted to Road Construction Department and not
applicable to Minor Water Resources Department, inasmuch as
the letter was not the part of the registration of the petitioner nor
has been issued for general application in all departments.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
12/19
9. Such a submission is liable to be rejected for the
reason that it is a settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
the power to blacklist is an inherent power of the authority
without there being a specific provision, administrative or
statutory .
10. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Kulja Industries Limited Vrs.
Chief General Manager W.T. Proj. BSNL & Ors. (Civil Appeal
No. 8944 of 2013) wherein it held that 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
inherent in the party allotting the contract. The Court held that
there is no need for any such power being specifically conferred
by statute or reserved by contractor. According to the Court
‘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.
The Court also clarified that between two private parties the
right to take any such decision is absolute and untrammelled by
any constraints whatsoever. Surely, any such decision is subject
to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any its
instrumentalities. According to the Court, the same implies that

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
13/19
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.
11. Having noted the position of law, it follows that
the reliance on the Order No. 154 dated 18.06.2015 would have
no bearing on the Contracting Authority to blacklist a contractor
for a good and valid reason. Hence, it follows it is
inconsequential that the order has been issued by the Road
Construction Department and not by Minor Irrigation
Department and also it is not gazetted in the name of the
Governor.
12. In so far as the issue of proportionality is
concerned, the issue is no more res integra in view of the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Ashish Anand Vrs. State of Bihar passed in C.W.J.C. No.
19292 of 2025 , wherein the Court had formulated two issues for
its consideration.
13. The Issue No. (ii) is an identical one, which
relates to the proportionality of the order of blacklisting for a
period of 10 years. The Co-ordinate Bench has answered the
said issue in paragraph no. 17 onwards which we reproduce as
under:
Re. Issue No. (ii)

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
14/19
17. It is not in dispute that the work
experience certificate submitted by the petitioner
was found to be false upon verification conducted
by the Executive Engineer, Building Construction
Division, Supaul. Pursuant thereto, a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner. The records
further reveal that when the petitioner failed to
submit any reply, a reminder show cause notice
dated 21.03.2023 was also issued, thereby granting
him a further opportunity to explain his stand.
18. In response to the reminder show
cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply
dated 27.03.2023, wherein he admitted that the
work experience certificate furnished by him was
false and sought pardon for the same. Thus, the
very basis of the impugned action stands admitted
by the petitioner himself.
19. The contention of the petitioner that
no opportunity of hearing was granted also does
not merit acceptance. The petitioner was served
with a show cause notice and thereafter a reminder
show cause notice. He also submitted his written
explanation, which has been considered before
passing the impugned order. In the facts of the
present case, this Court is satisfied that the
principles of natural justice have been duly
complied with.
20. This Court further finds that the
impugned order has been passed in terms of the
BSEIDC Office- Order contained in Letter No. 73
dated 02.06.2022, issued in furtherance of the
Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2013, which
specifically provides that where a contractor
submits forged or fabricated documents, he shall
be blacklisted for a period of ten years. Therefore,
the authority has merely imposed the consequence
prescribed under the applicable Rules and policy.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel
Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in
(2012) 11 SCC 257 , has held that blacklisting is a
recognised power of the State and can be exercised
for legitimate purposes, provided the principles of

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
15/19
natural justice are complied with. The relevant
portion of the said order reads as follows:
“15. It follows from the
above judgment in Erusian
Equipment case that the decision of
the State or its instrumentalities not
to deal with certain persons or
class of persons on account of the
undesirability of entering into the
contractual relationship with such
persons is called blacklisting. The
State can decline to enter into a
contractual relationship with a
person or a class of persons for a
legitimate purpose. The authority of
the State to blacklist a person is a
necessary concomitant to the
executive power of the State to
carry on the trade or the business
and making of contracts for any
purpose, etc. There need not be any
statutory grant of such power. The
only legal limitation upon the
exercise of such an authority is that
the State is to act fairly and
rationally without in any way being
arbitrary—thereby such a decision
can be taken for some legitimate
purpose. What is the legitimate
purpose that is sought to be
achieved by the State in a given
case can vary depending upon
various factors.”
22. In Gorkha Security Services v.
Government (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that before
passing an order of blacklisting, the person
concerned must be given a meaningful opportunity
to show cause against the proposed action. The
relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“Necessity of serving
show-cause notice as a requisite of

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
16/19
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.”
23. In the present case, the requirement
stood satisfied as the petitioner was issued a show
cause notice, followed by a reminder show cause
notice, and his reply dated 27.03.2023 was duly
considered before the impugned order was passed.
24. In view of the admitted conduct of
the petitioner, the compliance with the principles of
natural justice and the statutory consequence
prescribed under the Bihar Contractor
Registration Rules, 2013 read with the BSEIDC
Office- Order dated 02.06.2022, this Court finds
no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order
dated 11.05.2023 warranting interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
25. Accordingly, Issue No. (ii) is
answered against the petitioner.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere in
the present writ application.
27. Accordingly, the present writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
17/19
application stands dismissed.
28. Pending application (s), if any, shall
also stands disposed of.”
14. Having noted the aforesaid position of law and
also the fact that the competent authority while passing an order
of blacklisting has referred to the Officer Order No. 154 dated
18.06.2015, the vires of which has not been challenged by the
petitioner, we are of the view that the impugned orders cannot
be challenged on the grounds urged by Mr. Ranjan.
15. Now, on the issue of proportionality, that is
whether the blacklisting for 10 years is justified in the facts of
this case.
16. The allegation against the petitioner is of
submitting a false and fabricated experience certificate while
applying for a tender in the year 2021-22. The factum that the
petitioner had submitted such a certificate has not been
contested by Mr. Ranjan.
17. Hence, it follows the blacklisting is not for
violating any provisions of the contract but the very attempt of
the petitioner to secure a contract on the basis of a false
certificate purported to have been issued by Minor Irrigation,
Nawada for a work executed by a third party.
18. In other words, the petitioner sought to rely on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
18/19
certificate showing him having executed the work which
otherwise was executed by a third party. The certificate being a
false and fabricated would depict the manner in which the
petitioner intend to secure a contract which is a very serious
misdemeanour as contended by Mr. S.D. Sanjay.
19. Such a ground is different from the ground
wherein the blacklisting is for violating the terms of the
provisions of the Contract, which ground may not be such a
serious allegation as submitting a false and fabricated
certificate, which allegation has not been contested by Mr.
Ranjan.
20. If that be so, surely the allegation shocks the
conscience of the Court and need to be taken seriously to ensure
such acts are not repeated in future. In the facts more
particularly keeping in view the judgment of the Division Bench
wherein the Division Bench has upheld such a
provision/punishment, the impugned order of blacklisting for a
period of 10 years cannot be interfered with. We may also at this
stage deal with the submission of Mr. Ranjan seeking parity by
referring to cases wherein for similar allegation the period of
blacklisting was reduced from 10 years to a lesser period, by
holding that each case has to be seen in the facts of that case. In

Patna High Court CWJC No.13129 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
19/19
any case given the position of law as settled by this Court in
Ashish Anand (supra), we are not inclined to accept this plea of
parity of Mr. Ranjan.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is
dismissed.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.


(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J) : I agree.


(Partha Sarthy, J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 13.10.2026
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date NA