Patna High Court
Yaduvansham Infrastructure Private LimitedversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to make a fresh representation before the competent authority, and therefore the orders were not set aside but the matter was remanded for hearing.
Summary
Yaduvansham Infrastructure Private Limited was blacklisted for two years by the Rural Works Department of Bihar on the ground that its experience certificate was allegedly forged. The petitioner contended that the blacklisting order and the subsequent appellate order were passed without any hearing, violated principles of natural justice, and were discriminatory in view of more lenient treatment of other contractors in similar situations. The petition sought quashing of both orders, a declaration of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, and permission to participate in future tenders. The High Court observed that the petitioner must be afforded a chance to make a fresh representation before the competent authority and that the matter should be decided after a proper hearing. Accordingly, the court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Secretary of the Rural Works Department and disposed of the writ application.
Issues considered
- Whether the blacklisting order and the appellate order were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the orders are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the orders and be allowed to participate in future tenders.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14
Subjects
- blacklisting
- natural justice
- Article 14
- discrimination
- contractor registration
- Bihar
- writ jurisdiction
- opportunity of hearing
- tender participation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.365 of 2026
======================================================
Yaduvansham Infrastructure Private Limited, through its Managing Director
Alok Raj, Gender-Male, aged about -31 years, Son of Ram Pravesh Yadav,
Resident of Ward No. -4, Shir Sai Complex, Gaushala Road, P.S.-Chitragupta
Nagar, District and Town-Khagaria, Pin-851204.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Visheweshraiya Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Visheweshraiya Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer-4, Rural Works Department, Purnea.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle,
Saharsa.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division,
Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lal Babu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar, AC to GA 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The following reliefs have been sought in the
present writ application:
“(i) For quashing of the Reasoned Order No. 10025
(contained in Memo No. 10025) dated 18-09-2025
passed by the Respondent Engineer-In-Chief (Annexure
P/5) whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a
period of two years under Clause 11(ka) (ix) and (kha)
(ii) of the Notification No. 8123 dated 19-12-2007 of the
Rural works Department, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.365 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
2/4
(ii) For quashing of the Appellate order dated
05.12.2025 (contained in Memo No. 12403 dated 10-
12-2025) (Annexure P/7) whereby the Respondent
Secretary has dismissed the appeal preferred by the
petitioner and affirmed the order of blacklisting dated
18.09.2025 contained in Reasoned Order No. 10025.
(iii) For a direction to the Respondents not to act upon
the order of the blacklisting dated 18.09.2025 contained
in Reasoned Order No. 10025 and the appellate order
dated 05.12.2025 contained in Memo No. 12403.
(iv) For appropriate declarations that -
a) The impugned order of blacklisting dated 18.09.2025
and the Appellate order dated 05-12-2025 are violative
of principles of natural justice and fair play.
(b) The impugned appellate Order dated 05-12-2025 is
highly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as the same Respondent Secretary
has set aside or reduced the period of the blacklisting
for period of only few months with respect to other
contractors on the same allegation/charge.
(v) For a direction to the respondents to allow the
petitioner in participating in the future tender during
pendency of the present writ application.
(vi) For any other relief(s) or consequential reliefs) to
which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts
and circumstances of this case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order of blacklisting has been passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted
that in cases of other contractors, arising out of similar facts and
circumstances, the Appellate Authority has either set aside the
orders of blacklisting or reduced the period thereof. The said
orders have been brought on record as Annexure-P/8 series.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner's case
deserves consideration on the principle of parity and that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.365 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
3/4
period of blacklisting may accordingly be reduced.
4. From a perusal of the order under challenge dated
18.09.2025 and the appellate order dated 05.12.2025, it appears
that the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of two years
on the ground that the experience certificate uploaded by him
was found to be forged and no clarification was submitted by
the petitioner despite opportunity having been granted.
5. Under the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules
(Rural Works Department), 2007, issued vide Notification No.
8123 dated 19.12.2007 by the Rural Works Department,
Government of Bihar, provisions have been made for
blacklisting and suspension of registered contractors. Rule 11
thereof reads as under:
“11. Black-Listing and Suspension:-
(a) Contractors registered in any of the classes shall be
liable for black-listing or demotion to a lower class or
suspension for a specified period if he personally or any
partner of the firm or company, or any of its director(s)
or employee(s) or representative(s) indulge(s) in any of
the following malpractices:-
(i) xx xx xx
(ii) xx xx xx
(ix) On submission of false or forged security as
earnest money and forged documents.
(b) (i) xx xx xx
(ii) If any person as mentioned in clause 11(a) of
this rule indulges in any malpractice as
described in sub-clause(vi) to (xii) of 11(a) then
the concerned contractor may be black-listed.”
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.365 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
4/4
case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be
met if the petitioner is granted an opportunity to place his case
before the competent authority.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh
representation before Respondent No. 2, who in the event of
such representation is filed, shall consider the same and pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law, after granting an
opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
present writ application stands disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
sujit/-
U
Checking your session…