Contractor’s 10-Year Blacklisting For False Experience Certificate In Tender Bid Upheld By Patna HC

The petitioner was blacklisted for ten years by an order dated 14 March 2023, which was set aside in an earlier writ proceeding with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law after giving him an opportunity of hearing.

Following a fresh show-cause notice and the petitioner’s reply, the Chief Engineer again blacklisted him for ten years on 10 December 2025, on the allegation that he had submitted a false experience certificate in a 2021–22 tender.

The petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Secretary on 28 July 2026.

He then challenged the appellate and blacklisting orders, arguing, among other things, that his contractor registration had expired, the action exceeded the show-cause notice, the relied-on office order was inapplicable, and the ten-year period was disproportionate.

Under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, including Clause 11, the relevant registration regime provides for contractor registration and an appellate remedy; expiry of registration does not itself bar action for misconduct arising from an earlier tender process.

The Court relied on the principle in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, W.T. Project, BSNL that blacklisting is an inherent power of a contracting authority, subject to judicial review for fairness, natural justice, and proportionality.

It also referred to Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India on the State’s power to blacklist for a legitimate purpose, and to Ashish Anand v. State of Bihar on the proportionality of a ten-year period for submitting a false certificate.

The Court treated Office Order No. 154 dated 18 June 2015 as relevant to the impugned decision, noting that its validity had not been challenged.

The Court held that the blacklisting proceedings concerned alleged submission of a false experience certificate in 2021–22, and that the initial action had begun before the petitioner’s registration expired; in any event, registration expiry did not prevent action for the alleged misconduct.

It rejected the notice-related objection, reasoning that the proceedings and resulting orders made the petitioner aware that the action relied on the 2007 Rules read with Office Order No. 154, and found no prejudice from the notice’s omission of that order.

It further held that the authority’s inherent power to blacklist did not depend on Office Order No. 154 being issued by the Minor Irrigation Department or gazetted.

On proportionality, the Court treated the alleged use of a false certificate to obtain a contract as serious, noted that the allegation was not contested in argument, and declined to reduce the ten-year period, relying on Ashish Anand.

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending applications.