Writ jurisdiction against show-cause notices is restricted to exceptional cases of jurisdictional error or manifest pre-determination.

The Petitioner participated in a tender for road widening and strengthening issued by the Road Construction Department, Bihar

Although initially declared the lowest bidder (L-1), a subsequent re-evaluation by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee revealed that the Petitioner had furnished incorrect information regarding its existing commitments

Consequently, the Petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive, and a Show Cause Notice ("SCN") dated 17.03.2026 was issued by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Registering Authority

The SCN proposed blacklisting the Petitioner for ten years under Clause 11(d)(vii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007

The Petitioner challenged the SCN under Article 226, contending it was vague, biased, and reflected a pre-determined mind

Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 17.03.2026 suffers from jurisdictional error, vagueness, or pre-determination sufficient to warrant interference at the pre-decisional stage under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

The court primarily applied the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, which empower the Engineer-in-Chief as the Registering Authority to initiate blacklisting proceedings

It relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28] and Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories [(2007) 13 SCC 270], which established that writ courts should not ordinarily interfere at the SCN stage unless the notice is ex-facie without jurisdiction or an abuse of law

It further applied Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440], which deprecates the practice of stalling investigative inquiries through writ petitions

It further applied J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, which limits interference to exceptional circumstances like patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice

The court determined the writ petition was premature because the Petitioner had not yet replied to the SCN

On jurisdiction, the court held that since the 2007 Rules vest the Engineer-in-Chief with the power to blacklist, he is inherently competent to initiate the process via an SCN

Regarding vagueness, the court found that the notice clearly identified the allegation (incorrect information on existing commitments), which provided sufficient notice for a reply

The court dismissed the allegation of bias, noting that the decision to initiate action was a collective recommendation of a multi-member committee and that a prima facie opinion does not equate to pre-judgment

Finally, the court held that mentioning a proposed ten-year blacklisting was a procedural necessity to inform the Petitioner of potential consequences and did not constitute a final determination of guilt

It held that the notice did not suffer from jurisdictional infirmity or pre-determination

The court granted the Petitioner liberty to submit a reply to the SCN and directed the competent authority to consider said reply in accordance with the law, without being prejudiced by the court’s observations