Patna High Court
SIFY Digital Services LimitedversusThe State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Education Department,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The court held that the fixed‑term blacklisting ending on 31 March 2026 will not work to the detriment of the petitioner’s eligibility for future tenders, and therefore the review petition was disposed without adjudicating its merits.
Summary
SIFY Digital Services Ltd. challenged a government order that blacklisted it and terminated its contract, seeking a writ to quash the order and restore its eligibility for future tenders. The Division Bench dismissed the writ and the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition, which was later withdrawn with liberty to seek a review in the High Court. In the review, the petitioner argued that the impending expiry of the blacklisting period on 31 March 2026 would still prejudice its ability to obtain new contracts. The court observed that the blacklisting was for a fixed period and, once it expires, the petitioner would be eligible to participate in tenders without any disadvantage. Consequently, the court refrained from deciding the review on merit and disposed of the petition, noting that the blacklisting would not affect future tender participation.
Issues considered
- Whether a fixed‑term blacklisting order that expires on 31 March 2026 can prejudice the petitioner’s eligibility for future tenders.
- Whether the review petition should be decided on its merits given the imminent expiry of the blacklisting period.
Subjects
- blacklisting
- tender eligibility
- review petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
- contract termination
- public procurement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.304 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13538 of 2025
======================================================
SIFY Digital Services Limited having its Registered Office at 2 nd floor TIDEL
PARK No.4, Canal Bank Road Taramani, Chennai- 600113, E-mail
[email protected] through its Authorised Officer Sanjeev Kumar
Agrawal, aged about 50 years, (M), S/o Late Shri P.N. Agrawal, R/o G-3, Plot
No. 296, Sector- 4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh- 201010.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Education
Department, Patna, Government of Bihar Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat,
Patna- 800015, Bihar, E-mail. [email protected].
2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB), Sinha Library
Road, (Near Sinha Library). Patna- 800017, Bihar, E-mail.
[email protected].
3. The Director, State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT),
Mahendru, Patna (Bihar), Pin No. 800006, E-mail.
[email protected].
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Amit Yadav, Advocate
: Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
: Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate
: Mr. Shashank Shekhar Kunwar, Advocate
: Mr. Amarjeet, Advocate
: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG
: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA)
3 18-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. A writ application had been earlier filed by the
petitioner praying for the relief(s):
"(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order, or
Patna High Court C. REV. No.304 of 2025(3) dt.18-03-2026
2/5
direction, preferably in the nature of certiorari,
for quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P/24),
whereby the Petitioner has been blacklisted till
31.03.2026 and the contract has been
terminated.
(ii) To issue a writ, order, or direction
in nature of mandamus, commanding the
Respondents to recall and withdraw the
impugned order, and to restore the Petitioner's
eligibility to participate in future tenders issued
by the Respondent Department."
3. The said writ application was heard at length on
14.10.2025 and after hearing all the parties concerned, the said
writ application was dismissed by a detailed reasoned and
speaking order. While dismissing the said writ application, the
Division Bench of this Court had framed certain important
issues which were decided in the final judgment and order dated
14.10.2025.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order
dated 14.10.2025 passed in CWJC No. 13538 of 2025, the
petitioner had filed an SLP bearing SLP No. (C) No. 33236 of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.304 of 2025(3) dt.18-03-2026
3/5
2025. On 28.11.2025, the SLP filed by the petitioner was taken
up before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the following order was
passed:
“UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
ORDER
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the
Special Leave Petition, with liberty to file a
review before the High Court.
Permission granted.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.”
5. In terms of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, this review petition has been filed by the
petitioner for review of the judgment and order dated
14.10.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWJC
No. 13538 of 2025.
6. Several grounds for seeking review of the judgment
and order dated 14.10.2025 has been advanced. During the
course of argument, specific query was made to the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the period of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.304 of 2025(3) dt.18-03-2026
4/5
blacklisting was coming to an end on 31st March, 2026, would it
be appropriate and relevant for the petitioner to continue to
press this review petition?
7. After advancing some arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the period of blacklisting was
coming to an end on 31st of March, 2026 and though he would
be free to participate in fresh tender after 31 st of March, 2026
but this period of blacklisting will work to his detriment in
getting fresh contracts in future and under this belief and
impression the petitioner has no option than to press the review
petition.
8. This argument being advanced on behalf of the
learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be fallicious for the
reason when the blacklisting order is for a fixed period which is
going to come to end on 31st March, 2026, then under no
circumstance, the period of blacklisting can possibly come in
the way of awarding of fresh contracts in future, if otherwise,
the petitioner would be found eligible.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore now
submits that he is prepared to not press this petition on merit if
this Court would give an observation that the period of
blacklisting will not work to the detriment of the petitioner in
Patna High Court C. REV. No.304 of 2025(3) dt.18-03-2026
5/5
awarding fresh contracts in future, if otherwise, the petitioner is
found eligible.
10. To the aforesaid submission cum prayer made on
behalf of petitioner the respondent parties do not have any
objection.
11. In light of the aforesaid, and particularly taking
note of the fact that the period of blacklisting is going to come
to end on 31st March, 2026, on the request of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, this Court refrains from deciding the civil
review on merit and it is accordingly disposed of with an
observation that the period of blacklisting which will come to
end on 31st of March, 2026 will not come in the way or work to
the detriment of the petitioner in participating in any fresh
tender, in future, if otherwise, the petitioner is found eligible.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…