Patna High Court
Rai Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The show‑cause notice issued by the Engineer‑in‑Chief under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 is within jurisdiction and not void for vagueness, bias or pre‑determination, so the writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Rai Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd., challenged a show‑cause notice issued by the Engineer‑in‑Chief of the Bihar Road Construction Department that proposed blacklisting the company for ten years under Clause 11(d)(vii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007. The petition sought quashing of the notice, a declaration that the underlying Office Order was not enforceable, and a restraining order against any coercive action. The court examined whether the notice suffered from jurisdictional defect, vagueness, bias or pre‑determination. It held that the Engineer‑in‑Chief is the competent authority under the Rules and that issuing a show‑cause notice is a statutory prerequisite, not a jurisdictional error. The notice was found to disclose the nature of the allegation sufficiently and did not amount to a final determination, bias, or abuse of process. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as premature, with the court directing the petitioner to file a reply to the notice.
Issues considered
- Did the Engineer‑in‑Chief have jurisdiction to issue the show‑cause notice and initiate blacklisting under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007?
- Is the show‑cause notice void for vagueness, lack of material particulars, bias, or pre‑determination?
- Can a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution interfere with a show‑cause notice at the pre‑decisional stage?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- show cause notice
- blacklisting
- Bihar Contractors Registration Rules
- jurisdiction
- natural justice
- pre‑decisional stage
- Article 226
- writ petition
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4759 of 2026
======================================================
Rai Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. having its Corporate Office at 601, 6th floor,
Lav Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna
through its Director Baidya Nath Rai, aged about 53 years, Male, son of
Mahendra Rai, Resident of Flat No. 410, Ashiyana Plaza, Budha Marg, P S
Kotwali, District Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief-Cum- Additional Commissioner cum Special
Secretary, (Works Management), Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (North), Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division,
Rosera, District Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amish Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 21-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:
(i) For quashing the Notice to Show Cause as contained
in Letter No. 1908 dated 17.03.2026 (Annexure P/5),
whereby the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Registering
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
2/14
Authority has called upon the petitioner to submit its
reply within 15 days as to why, for the alleged furnishing
of incorrect information in the tender process, the
petitioner be not blacklisted for a period of ten years in
terms of Clause 11(d)(vii) of the Bihar Contractors
Registration Rules, 2007 read with Clause 8(4) of Office
Order No. 154 contained in Memo No. 5403 dated
18.06.2015;
(ii) For declaration that Office Order No. 154 contained
in Memo No. 5403 dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure P/6) does
not create any enforceable rights or liabilities, as the
same is neither a decision of the State Government nor
part of the bidding documents, and has not been
published in the Official Gazette;
(iii) For restraining the respondents from taking any
coercive action pursuant to the impugned show cause
notice during the pendency of the present writ
application.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a Notice Inviting
Tender No. RCD/Rosera/051/2025-26 dated 23.08.2025 was
issued for widening and strengthening of Ilmas Nagar–Balipur
Dumra Road. Pursuant thereto, only two bidders participated. The
Technical Bid Evaluation Committee initially found the
petitioner’s bid to be responsive and recommended opening of its
financial bid, while rejecting the other bidder. The petitioner was
thereafter declared the lowest bidder (L-1).
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
3/14
4. However, subsequently, upon direction for re-
evaluation, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee reviewed its
earlier decision and found that the petitioner had furnished
incorrect information regarding its existing commitments.
Consequently, the petitioner’s bid was declared non-responsive,
and the Departmental Tender Committee directed re-tendering
along with initiation of proceedings against the petitioner.
5. During pendency of the challenge to the said decision
in CWJC No. 4769 of 2026, the impugned show cause notice
dated 17.03.2026 came to be issued proposing blacklisting of the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned show-cause Notice is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and
vitiated by serious legal infirmities. It is submitted that the notice
is vague, bereft of material particulars, and unsupported by any
substantive material. It is further submitted that the impugned
Show Cause Notice is vitiated by bias and pre-determination,
inasmuch as the Engineer-in-Chief, who has issued the notice, had
already participated in the decision dated 26.02.2026 declaring the
petitioner’s bid non-responsive and recommending action. It is
submitted that the authority has thus already formed a conclusive
opinion, rendering the opportunity of hearing illusory.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
4/14
7. It is further submitted that the impugned Show Cause
Notice amounts to a post-decisional hearing and that the indication
of proposed punishment of blacklisting for ten years demonstrates
pre-judgment. Reliance has been placed on Oryx Fisheries Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.(2010) 13 SCC 427, Union of
India & Ors. vs. Sanjay Jethi (2013) 16 SCC 116, M/s. Godrej
Sara Lee vs. The Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing
Authority & Ors, and J. Sri Nisha vs. The Special Director,
Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the impugned Show Cause Notice has been issued by
the competent authority under the Bihar Contractors Registration
Rules, 2007(hereinafter referred to as 2007 Rules). It is submitted
that the notice clearly discloses the nature of allegations and
affords an opportunity of reply, which the petitioner has chosen not
to avail.
9. It is further submitted that the plea of bias is
misconceived, as the recommendation is a collective decision of a
multi-member committee, and the Engineer-in-Chief has acted in
his statutory capacity. Reliance has been placed on Union of India
vs. Coastal Containers Transporters Association and Executive
Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
5/14
10. The limited issue which arises for consideration is
whether the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 17.03.2026
suffers from such jurisdictional error, vagueness, absence of
material, or pre-determination so as to warrant interference at the
pre-decisional stage under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the writ
petition has been filed at a premature stage, without the petitioner
having availed the opportunity of submitting a reply to the show
cause notice.
12. The plea of lack of jurisdiction raised on behalf of
the petitioner is found to be wholly misconceived. It is not in
dispute that under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007,
the Engineer-in-Chief is the designated Registering Authority and
is vested with the power to pass an order of blacklisting against a
contractor. The Rules further mandate that before any such adverse
action is taken, the contractor must be afforded an opportunity to
show cause. In this backdrop, it necessarily follows that the
authority which is competent to pass an order of blacklisting is
equally competent to initiate the process leading thereto. The
issuance of a show cause notice is not an independent or detached
exercise of power, but rather an inseparable and preliminary step
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
6/14
in the decision-making process culminating in blacklisting. Thus,
when the statute vests the power of blacklisting in the Engineer-in-
Chief and requires a prior opportunity of hearing, the issuance of
the show cause notice by the said authority is not only within
jurisdiction but is a statutorily mandated procedural step. The
contention of the petitioner that the authority lacks jurisdiction to
issue the show cause notice, therefore, overlooks the settled
principle that the power to decide necessarily carries with it the
power to initiate proceedings. The impugned notice, being issued
by the competent authority in furtherance of such statutory duty,
cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 and Union of India
v. Vicco Laboratories reported in (2007) 13 SCC 270 has
consistently held that ordinarily no writ lies against a show cause
notice unless it is ex facie without jurisdiction. The relevant part of
Kunisetty Satyanarayana(supra) reads as follows:
“15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and
hence such discretion under Article 226 should not
ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice
or charge-sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases
the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause
notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or
for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However,
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
7/14
ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a
matter.”
13. Further, the relevant part of Vicco
Laboratories(supra) reads as follows:
“31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the
stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities.
In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put
forth their contentions before the authorities concerned
and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the
absence of case for proceeding against the person
against whom the show-cause notices have been issued.
Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of
show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the
proceedings before the authorities concerned is the
normal rule. However, the said rule is not without
exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either
without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law,
certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to
interfere even at the stage of issuance of show-cause
notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage
should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere
assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without
jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not
suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so.
Where factual adjudication would be necessary,
interference is ruled out.”
14. The submission that the impugned Show Cause
Notice is vague or devoid of material particulars also does not
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
8/14
merit acceptance. The notice clearly indicates that the allegation
pertains to furnishing incorrect information regarding existing
commitments in the bidding process. At this stage, a detailed
adjudication is neither required nor expected. The notice
sufficiently apprises the petitioner of the nature of allegations. As
held in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse reported in
(2004) 3 SCC 440, the Court should be slow to interfere at the
stage of show cause notice. The relevant part of the said order
reads as follows:
“5 [Ed. : Para 5 corrected vide Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./40/2004 dated 2-4-2004] . This Court in a
large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the
High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning
legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as
proposed and retarding investigative process to find
actual facts with the participation and in the presence of
the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the
show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the
law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to
even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be
entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of
routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be
directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all
stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-
cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a
jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the
recipient of the notice and such issues also can be
adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
9/14
initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court.
Further, when the court passes an interim order it should
be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially
and specifically constituted for the purpose are not
denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the
matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may
not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded
to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim
protection granted.”
15. The contention that the notice is based on no
material is equally premature. The impugned Show Cause Notice
has been issued on the basis of findings recorded by the Technical
Bid Evaluation Committee and the Departmental Tender
Committee. The sufficiency or correctness of such material cannot
be gone into at this stage, as the show cause notice is only a step in
the decision-making process.
16. The principal contention of bias and pre-
determination also does not merit acceptance. While the petitioner
has relied upon Oryx Fisheries(supra) and Sanjay Jethi(supra),
the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. In those
cases, the show cause notices reflected conclusive findings and a
closed mind. In the present case, the impugned notice merely calls
upon the petitioner to explain the discrepancies noticed in its bid
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
10/14
and does not record any final determination. The formation of a
prima facie opinion cannot be equated with pre-judgment.
17. The plea of bias is also without substance. The
recommendation for action is a collective decision of a multi-
member committee, and the Engineer-in-Chief has acted in his
statutory capacity. Mere participation in the earlier process does
not establish real likelihood of bias.
18. The contention that the impugned Show Cause
Notice amounts to a post-decisional hearing is also untenable. The
notice is only an initiation of proceedings and not the culmination
thereof. The petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to submit
its reply before any adverse action is taken.
19. The contention that the impugned notice reflects pre-
determination on account of indication of proposed punishment
also does not merit acceptance. The notice merely indicates the
nature of allegation and calls upon the petitioner to explain as to
why action, including blacklisting for a period of ten years, be not
taken in terms of the applicable Rules. Such indication is only for
the purpose of putting the petitioner to notice of the possible
consequence and cannot be construed as a final determination of
guilt or punishment.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
11/14
20. The decision in J. Sri Nisha(supra) assumes
significance, wherein it has been held that although a show cause
notice can be challenged in writ jurisdiction, such interference is
permissible only in exceptional cases, namely where the notice is
without jurisdiction, reflects a pre-determined mind, or violates
principles of natural justice. In the present case, none of these
contingencies are attracted. The relevant part of the said order
reads as follows:
“32. .. This Court has consistently held that although
ordinarily a writ petition against an SCN may not be
entertained, however, the said proposition is not an
inviolable rule. Interference at the stage of SCN is
permissible in exceptional circumstances, such as where
the notice suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction, reflects
non-application of mind, is issued with a pre-determined
or premeditated approach, amounts to an abuse of the
process of law, or results in a violation of the principles
of natural justice.”
21. In Union of India vs. Coastal Containers
Transporters Association & Ors. (AIR Online 2019 SC 520), it
has been held that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering
at the stage of show cause notice when the authority is competent
and the proceedings are at a nascent stage. The relevant part of the
said order reads as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
12/14
“19. On the other hand, we find force in the contention of
the learned senior Counsel, Sri Radhakrishnan,
appearing for the Appellants that the High Court has
committed error in entertaining the writ petition Under
Article 226 of Constitution of India at the stage of show
cause notices. Though there is no bar as such for
entertaining the writ petitions at the stage of show cause
notice, but it is settled by number of decisions of this
Court, where writ petitions can be entertained at the
show cause notice stage. Neither it is a case of lack of
jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural
justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the
stage of notice. High Court ought not to have entertained
the writ petition, more so, when against the final orders
appeal lies to this Court...”
22. Similarly, in The Executive Engineer, Bihar State
Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in
AIR 1996 SC 691, it has been held that writ jurisdiction should not
be invoked to stall statutory proceedings at the threshold. The
relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“10. We are concerned in this case, with the
entertainment of the writ petition against a show-cause
notice issued by a competent statutory authority. It
should be borne in mind that there is no attack against
the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter.
No question of infringement of any fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It
cannot be said that Ext. P-4 notice is ex facie a ‘nullity’
or totally “without jurisdiction” in the traditional sense
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
13/14
of that expression — that is to say, that even the
commencement or initiation of the proceedings, on the
face of it and without anything more, is totally
unauthorised. In such a case, for entertaining a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
against a show-cause notice, at that stage, it should be
shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to
enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is
only appropriate that the party should avail of the
alternate remedy and show cause against the same before
the authority concerned and take up the objection
regarding jurisdiction also, then. In the event of an
adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him to assail
the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be,
or in appropriate cases, by invoking the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned show cause notice does
not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.
24. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present writ
petition, and the same is dismissed.
25. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at
liberty to submit its reply to the show cause notice, and the
competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with
law, without being prejudiced by any observations made herein.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 4759 of 2026 dt.21-04-2026
14/14
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
I agree.
(Shailendra Singh, J.)
(Shailendra Singh, J.)
Gaurav Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 03.04.2026
Uploading Date 21.04.2026
Transmission Date N.A.
Checking your session…