Patna High Court
M/s Parmar EnterprisesversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The order confirming the two‑year blacklisting is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration on the grounds of proportionality and parity.
Summary
Parmar Enterprises, through its partner Kripakant Singh, participated in a government tender and was alleged to have submitted a forged experience certificate, leading to a show‑cause notice and a blacklisting order of two years. The petitioner replied, claiming the error was inadvertent and that similar cases had received lesser punishments. The appeal against the blacklisting was dismissed by the Secretary‑Cum‑Appellate Authority, prompting a writ petition seeking quashing of the blacklisting order, the dismissal order, and a stay on enforcement. The High Court held that the core issue was the proportionality of the punishment and parity with similarly situated cases. It set aside the dismissal order, remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, and directed reference to the Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank judgment on proportionality. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the two‑year blacklisting order is proportionate to the alleged forgery of the experience certificate.
- Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal without considering parity with similar cases.
- Whether the blacklisting order and the subsequent dismissal order should be quashed and a stay imposed.
Subjects
- blacklisting
- tender procurement
- show cause notice
- proportionality of punishment
- parity
- administrative law
- civil writ jurisdiction
- forgery allegation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4578 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Parmar Enterprises through its Partner Kripakant Singh, aged about 54
years, Male, son of Ramashish Singh, Resident of Ward No. 12, Near Mother
Teresa School, Chinvaniya, Motihari, P.S. Paharpur, District- East
Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Cum Appellate Authority, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer, In-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer-5, Muzaffarpur, Rural Works Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Works Circle- Muzaffarpur, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Works Division - Muzaffarpur (West), Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 30-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. Following is the relief sought for in the present writ
application:-
“(i) Quashing of the Order bearing
Memo No. 10276 dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P/6)
by which the Engineer In-Chief Cum Registering
Authority on the basis of absolutely incorrect fact
that no Reply to Show Cause Notice has been
furnished and thus, without considering the Reply
Patna High Court CWJC No.4578 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/4
filed by the petitioner has proceeded to blacklist the
Registration of the Petitioner bearing Registration
No. 1250011 for a period of 2-years;
(ii) Quashing of the consequential Order
bearing Memo No. 1755 dated 10.02.2026
(Annexure P/10) by which, the Departmental
Secretary Cum Appellate Authority, being
completely oblivious of the grounds of the Appeal
and failing to maintain comity in the matters of
parity in punishment has dismissed the Appeal and
confirmed the order of blacklisting for a period of 2-
years; and
(iii) Restraining the Respondents from
giving effect to and taking any coercive action(s)
pursuant to the Order bearing Memo No. 10276
dated 24.09.2025 and Order bearing Memo No.
1755 dated 10.02.2026 during the pendency of the
present writ application and/or the without the leave
of this Hon’ble Court.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had participated in the tender process pursuant to NIT
dated 09.05.2025. During verification of the documents, the
Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner was alleged
to be forged, amounting to violation of Clause 4.7(i) of the
CMBD. A show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner
submitted a reply dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure-P/5). It is
submitted that the incorrect certificate was uploaded
inadvertently due to an error on the part of an employee at the
cyber cafe, and there was no intention on the part of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4578 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
3/4
petitioner to submit any forged document. It is further submitted
that in similar cases, the Appellate Authority has reduced the
period of blacklisting from two years to a substantially lesser
duration (Annexure-P/11 series). On the ground of parity, the
petitioner has challenged the impugned orders.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced and
upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the
issue involved is confined to the aspect of proportionality of
punishment and parity with similarly situated cases. In such
circumstances, it would be appropriate that the matter is
reconsidered by the Appellate Authority on this limited ground.
5. Accordingly, the order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure
P/10) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. The Appellate
Authority may also take into consideration the judgment
rendered in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. Vs.
Rajendra Singh, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 on the aspect
of proportionality of punishment and thereafter pass a reasoned
and speaking order in accordance with law, after affording due
opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4578 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
4/4
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
present writ application stands allowed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Sachin/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.