Patna High Court
V. B. BuildcomversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The appellate order upholding the blacklisting is valid, but the petitioner may make a representation regarding the quantum of punishment before the Additional Chief Secretary.
Summary
The petitioner, V.B. Buildcom, challenged a two‑year blacklisting order issued by the Engineer‑in‑Chief of the Rural Works Department, alleging that the order was arbitrary, violated natural‑justice principles and infringed its fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). The blacklisting stemmed from alleged submission of forged documents in an e‑tender for a PMGSY‑III bridge project, leading to a show‑cause notice and dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. The court examined whether the documents contravened Rule 11(a)(ix) of the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules, 2007, which penalises submission of false or forged documents. It found no infirmity in the appellate authority’s order and held that the blacklisting was within the statutory framework. However, the court directed that the petitioner may file a representation before the Additional Chief Secretary concerning the quantum of punishment, with an opportunity of hearing for all stakeholders. The application was consequently disposed of, with the direction that any pending applications also stand disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the blacklisting order violated the principles of natural justice and the petitioner’s fundamental right to trade and profession under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- Whether the documents submitted by the petitioner amounted to a violation of Rule 11(a)(ix) of the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules, 2007.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 19(1)(g)
Subjects
- blacklisting
- natural justice
- fundamental rights
- Article 14
- Article 19(1)(g)
- procurement
- tender
- forged documents
- Rule 11(a)(ix)
- contractor registration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1438 of 2026
======================================================
V. B. Buildcom through its authorized representative namely Diwakar Kumar
(Reg. No.1200261), Male, aged about 43 years, S/o- Deo Narayan Bhagat,
Resident of Bhagat Tola, Ward No.- 28, P.S. Araria, District Araria Pin Code-
854311.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works
Department, the Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Rural Works Department Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Engineer -in- Chief, Rural Works Department Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Purnea.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department the Work Circle,
Kishanganj.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/S Nivedita Chaudhary and Prateek Kumar
Singh, A.C. to G.A. 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The following reliefs have been sought for by the
petitioner in the present writ application:
“1(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order
communicated vide Letter bearing Memo
Patna High Court CWJC No.1438 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/5
No. 10706 dated 09.10.2025 issued by the
respondent Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna,
whereby the petitioner bearing Registration
No. 1200261 has been blacklisted for a
period of 02(two) years unreasonable,
arbitrary and illegal manner, as well as the
order passed on 05.12.2025 passed by the
Secretary, Rural Works Department in
appeal filed by the petitioner communicated
vide Memo No. 12464 dated 11.12.2025.
(b) For further restraining the respondents
from depriving the petitioner or in any
manner, affecting the participation of the
petitioner in any of the tenders invited by
any Government Department of the State of
Bihar and any of the Corporation or
Company etc., in light of the impugned
office, arbitrary and violative of principles
of natural justice.
(c) For holding and a declaration that the
impugned office order blacklisting the
petitioner for a period of 02 (two) years from
the date of its issuance suffers from the error
of violation of principles of natural justice
for being non-speaking, disproportionate
and mechanical and as such fit to be
quashed and set aside by this Hon’b le
Court.
(d) For further holding and a declaration
Patna High Court CWJC No.1438 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
3/5
that the impugned office order having not
dealt with the issues of facts as well as law
raised by the petitioner on the one hand and
having drastic consequences of suspending
the whole business activity of the petitioner
as a contractor on the other hand for a
period of 02 (two) years is violative of the
fundamental rights of the petitioner for
freedom of trade and profession in terms of
Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
(e) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to
which the petitioner is found entitled to in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
(f) Whether the impugned order passed by
the respondent nos. 3 sand 4 do not violate
the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.?
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner had participated in an e-Tender (I.D. No.
140344) for construction of RCC Bridge under Works Division,
Araria under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana-III. As
required, the petitioner submitted details of two key personnels,
namely, Er. Arun Kumar and Er. Ankur Kumar. During scrutiny,
the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee found violation of
Clause 4.4B(b)(ii) of SBD (PMGSY-III), whereupon the
Department issued a show cause dated 25.08.2025. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.1438 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
4/5
petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause on
08.09.2025.
4. The case of the Department is that forged
documents were submitted alongwith the technical bid, and
therefore, an order was passed against the petitioner. Against the
said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was
also dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2025.
5. The issue for consideration before this Court is
whether the documents submitted by the petitioner alongwith
the technical bid were in violation of the provisions of the Bihar
Registration of Contractors Rules (Rural Works Department),
2007, particularly Rule 11(a)(ix), which is reproduced
hereinbelow:-.
“11 Black-Listing and Suspension:-
(a) (ix) On submission of false or forged
security as earnest money and forged
documents.”
6. Upon consideration of the materials on record,
this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate
Authority. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to make a
representation before respondent no. 2 namely, the Additional
Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna, limited to the issue of quantum of punishment. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.1438 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
5/5
the event such a representation is filed, respondent no. 2,
namely, the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, shall consider the
same, afford an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders
and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
present application stands disposed of.
8. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U.K./-
U
Checking your session…