Patna High Court
Umesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the department acted within its statutory authority and the blacklisting order stands.
Summary
The petitioner, a registered contractor, challenged a blacklisting order issued by the Rural Works Department of Bihar under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, on the ground that he had been convicted of a minor offence (IPC Section 323) and that an appeal against the conviction was pending. The department had blacklisted the petitioner for two years pursuant to Clause‑11 (क)(X) and Clause‑11 (ख)(ii) of the Rules, which empower it to take disciplinary action against contractors convicted in criminal proceedings. The petitioner argued that the conviction was for a minor family‑property dispute and that the pending appeal should stay the operation of the blacklisting. The State contended that the conviction remains operative until set aside or suspended, and the Rules make no distinction between minor and major offences. The Court held that the department acted within its statutory authority and that the Rules do not provide an exception for minor offences, thus refusing to interfere with the blacklisting. The writ petition was disposed of, and the Court directed the lower court to expedite the pending criminal appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the blacklisting of a contractor on the basis of a conviction under IPC Section 323, a minor offence, is violative of principles of proportionality and warrants interference by the writ court.
- Whether the pendency of an appeal against the conviction stays the operation of the blacklisting under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007.
- Whether the Rural Works Department was authorized under Clause‑11 (क)(X) and Clause‑11 (ख)(ii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 to blacklist the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 389
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323
Subjects
- blacklisting
- contractor registration
- writ jurisdiction
- criminal conviction
- minor offence
- Bihar Contractors Registration Rules
- Section 323 IPC
- administrative discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3367 of 2026
======================================================
Umesh Kumar, Son of Sri Narayan Mahto, Resident of Village- Sarsaula
Khurd, P.O., P.S. and District- Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary of the Rural
Works Department, Bihar, Old Secretariats, Patna- 800015.
2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department of Bihar Govt. Old
Secretariat, Patna - 800015.
3. Manoj Kumar, Son of Late Surya Deo Mahto, resident of Village- Sarsaula
Khurd, P.O., P.S. and District- Sheohar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
Mr.Chitransh Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghwanand, GA 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The following relief has been sought in the present
writ application:
“(i) For quashing or setting aside the order dated
21.01.2026, which has been issued by the Rural
Works Department of Bihar Govt. against the
instant petitioner of this case, where this petitioner
is a registered contractor vide Reg. No. 1220180.”
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the
petitioner is a registered contractor, and had been awarded work
Patna High Court CWJC No.3367 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
2/8
by the Rural Works Department. However, it was brought to the
notice of the respondent department that the petitioner is a
convict in a criminal case under Section 323 of I.P.C., and thus
he could not participate in tender process as per the provisions
of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules,2007. In view of the
aforesaid fact, the respondent department, after following due
procedure, passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2026,
whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of two
years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been convicted only for an offence under Section
323 of the I.P.C. (Sheohar P.S. Case No. 223/2014), which is a
minor offence arising out of a family property dispute. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has already preferred an
appeal against the said conviction before the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Sheohar, which has been registered as
Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025, and the same is pending
consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that since an appeal is pending consideration before the
competent court, the respondent-department should have
refrained from passing an order against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.3367 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
3/8
that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance
with the provisions of the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules,
2007. It is submitted that under Clause-11 (क)(X) and Clause-11
(ख)(ii) of the said Rules, the department is empowered to take
action including blacklisting against a contractor who has been
convicted in a criminal case.
6. Learned counsel for the State further submits that
the order of conviction, and the sentence remains valid and
operative unless it is set aside or suspended by the competent
court of appeal. A filing of an appeal against the order of
conviction and sentence, does not ispo facto make the order
inoperative, unless there be specific order in terms of Section
389 of CrPC (Section 430 of B.N.S.S.). Therefore, the order
impugned does not require interference by this court. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner has not challenged the
impugned order on ground of proportionality of punishment.
7. In light of the facts of the present case and the
statutory framework, the issue that arises for consideration
before this Court is that whether the blacklisting of the
petitioner for a period of two years, solely on account of his
conviction under Section 323 IPC arising out of a family
Patna High Court CWJC No.3367 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
4/8
dispute, warrants interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8. At the outset, this Court has examined the
impugned order dated 21.02.2026, whereby the petitioner has
been blacklisted for a period of two years. The operative portion
of the impugned order reads as follows:
“उपररोक वररर त तथ्यय कक आलरोक मम रवभभागगीय
समगीकरोपरभारांत रवदभान न्यभारयक दण्डभाधधिकभारगी, प्रथम शकरगी
दभारभा रशिवहर थभानभा कभारांड सरांख्यभा-223/2014, रदनभारांक-
30.11.2014, धजिलभा GR No.-797/2014 तथभा टट भायल
नरां.-340/2017 कक मभामलक मम रदनभारांक 23.10.2024 करो
पभाररत आदकशि कक तहत सरांवकदक उमकशि ककमभार (रनबरांधिन
सरांख्यभा-1220180) कक सरांधलप्ततभा व्यरक हरोनक कक कभारर
रबहभार ठक ककदभार रनबरांधिन रनयमभावलगी, 2007 कक धिभारभा 11
(क)(X) एवरां 11 (ख)(ii) कक आलरोक मम सरांवकदक उमकशि
ककमभार (रनबरांधिन सरांख्यभा-1220180) करो अगलक 02 (दरो)
वरर रां कक धलए कभालगीससूचगी (Blacklist) रकयभा जिभातभा हहै।”
9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears
that the competent authority has exercised its power under
Clause-11 (क)(X) and Clause-11 (ख)(ii) of the Bihar Contractor
Registration Rules, 2007, which empower the department to
Patna High Court CWJC No.3367 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
5/8
take disciplinary action including blacklisting of a contractor in
circumstances where the contractor is convicted in a criminal
proceeding or his conduct is considered prejudicial to the
interest of the department. The relevant rules reads as under:
“11. ककालली ससचली तथका ननिललंबनि :-
(क) व्यककतगत रूप ससे ठलीकसेदकार यका ननिबकनन्धित फरर कसे
नकसली सकाझलीदकार यका ननिजली ललोक सलीनरत कम्पनिली कसे
नकसली ननिदसेशक यका उनिकसे तकनिलीकली कररचकारली यका
उनिकसे नकसली पकानन्धिकक त पनतननिनन्धि दकारका ननिम्निनलनखित
रम ससे नकसली कदकाचकार कसे ककारण गकारलीण ककायर नविभकाग
कसे नकसली शसेणली रम ननिबलंनन्धित ठलीकसेदकार कका निकार ककालली
ससचली रम डकाल नदयका जका सकसेगका अथविका ननिकशचत अविनन्धि
कसे नलयसे ननिललंनबत नकयका जका सकसेगका अथविका अपनिसे
शसेणली ससे निलीचसे कसे शसेणली रम पदकाविनित (Demote) नकयका
जका सकसेगका :-
(i) xx xx xx
(ii) xx xx xx
(x) नकसली अपरकानन्धिक गनतनविनन्धि रम सजकायफ्तका हलोनिसे
पर।
(खि) (i) xx xx xx
(ii) कलंनडकका 11 (क) रम उल्लसेनखित नकसली भली व्यककत
कसे 11 (क) कली (Vi) ससे (Xi) तक रम विरणत नकसली भली
कदकाचकार रम सनलप्त पकायसे जकानिसे पर सलंबलंनन्धित सलंविसेदक
कलो ककालली ससचली रम डकालका जका सकसेगका।"
10. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions
indicates that the Rules vest discretionary powers in the
competent authority to blacklist a contractor upon the
occurrence of the contingencies mentioned therein. The Rules,
however, do not make any distinction between conviction for a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3367 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
6/8
minor offence and conviction for a major offence, nor do they
provide any exception enabling the authority to ignore
conviction in respect of minor offences.
11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner was prosecuted in Sheohar P.S. Case No. 223 of 2014
and was ultimately convicted under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code. The materials placed on record further indicate that
the criminal case arose out of a dispute relating to family, the
informant being a co-villager and a coparcener of the petitioner.
12. Considering the discussions made above, it
appears that the impugned order has been passed by the
competent authority in exercise of the powers conferred under
Clause-11 (क)(X) and Clause-11 (ख)(ii) of the Bihar Contractor
Registration Rules, 2007. As discussed above, the said Rules
empower the department to take disciplinary action including
blacklisting of a contractor who has been found guilty in a
criminal proceeding.
13. In the facts of the present case, although the
conviction recorded against the petitioner pertains to a minor
offence under Section 323 IPC, arising out of a family dispute
relating to property, yet the fact remains that the petitioner has
been convicted in a criminal proceeding. Once such conviction
Patna High Court CWJC No.3367 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
7/8
exists, and when the governing Rules do not carve out any
exception with regard to the nature or gravity of the offence, this
Court would find it difficult, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction,
to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority
strictly in terms of the Rules.
14. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in
the exercise of power by the competent authority so as to
warrant interference with the impugned order dated 22.01.2026,
as contained in Annexure P/6 to the present writ application.
15. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order of conviction (dated 23.10.2024 arising
out of Sheohar P.S. Case No. 223/2014) is having severe civil
consequence, i.e., blacklisting for a period of two years under
the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules. However, the
petitioner has been only convicted in a minor offence arising out
of family property dispute. Therefore, it would be suffice that
the learned Appellate Court is directed to dispose the appeal on
merits at the earliest. The said Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025,
challenging the judgment of conviction is presently pending
before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Sheohar.
16. Considering the submission that the conviction
relates to a minor offence, i.e., Section 323 of I.P.C., and only a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3367 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
8/8
pecuniary sentence has been awarded, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Sheohar to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025
expeditiously, in accordance with law on its own merits,
preferably within a period of three months from the date of
receipt or production of a copy of this order.
17. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ
application stands disposed of.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Sujit/-
U
Checking your session…