Patna High Court
Rishav Utilities Services Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The blacklisting order dated 10.12.2025 is set aside as it was passed without granting the petitioner a fair hearing and without disclosing the material evidence.
Summary
Rishav Utilities Services Pvt. Ltd. participated in two tenders of the Bihar Rural Works Department and was initially declared technically successful. The department later alleged that the company had submitted a forged payment certificate and, without furnishing the alleged document or giving a hearing, issued a blacklisting order under Clause 11 of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 for two years. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing a violation of the audi alteram partem principle and natural justice. The High Court held that the petitioner was not provided the document forming the basis of the allegation nor an opportunity to be heard, citing Supreme Court precedents on fair hearing. Consequently, the court set aside the blacklisting order and remitted the matter to the competent authority to decide after affording a proper hearing. The writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the blacklisting order passed under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 is valid when the petitioner was not furnished the alleged forged document and denied a hearing.
- Whether the denial of a fair hearing violates the audi alteram partem rule and renders the order void.
Subjects
- blacklisting
- natural justice
- audi alteram partem
- fair hearing
- administrative law
- Bihar Contractors Registration Rules
- tender fraud
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.571 of 2026
======================================================
Rishav Utilities Services Pvt. Ltd. having its Registered Office at Lane No. 1,
behind Vijay Petrol Pump, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhikhanpura, Ram
Dayalu, P.S. Sadar, Muzaffarpur, 842001 through its Managing Director,
Neeraj Kumar, aged about 42 years, Male, son of Sri Sunil Sanjeev, resident
of Lane No. 1, behind Vijay Petrol Pump, Maharana Pratap Nagar,
Bhikhanpura, Ram Dayalu, P.S. Sadar, Dist- Muzaffarpur, 842001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Engineer in Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary,
Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Jai Kishore Thakur, Son of Not Known to the petitioner, at present posted as
Engineer In-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 24-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) Quashing of the Order bearing
Memo No. 12396 dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure-
P/22) by which, the Engineer In-Chief, without
considering the Reply/Objection filed by the
petitioner and without furnishing the relied upon
documents has proceeded to Blacklist the
Patna High Court CWJC No.571 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
2/8
petitioner for a period of 2-years under Clause
11 of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rule,
2007; and
(ii) Restraining the Respondents from
giving effect to the ex parte Order of Blacklisting
as contained in Memo No. 12396 dated
10.12.2025 during the pendency of the present
writ application and/or the without the leave of
this Hon'ble Court.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
had participated in the tenders floated by the respondent-
department. The said tenders were – Notice Inviting Tender
bearing NIT No. RRSMP-01/2025-26 dated 11.06.2025 and NIT
No. RRSMP-04/2025-26 dated 27.05.2025. The petitioner was
initially declared technically successful, and was awarded work
order in NIT No. RRSMP-04/2025-26, and was declared L-1 in
NIT No. RRSMP-01/2025-26. However, upon receiving an
objection, the respondent-department scrutinized the bids of the
petitioner, and found that the petitioner had submitted
forged/fake payment certificate in the said tenders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order, dated 10.12.2025 has been passed without
supplying the relied upon document and without affording an
effective opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles
of natural justice. Reliance has also been placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India
Patna High Court CWJC No.571 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
3/8
and Others v. Rajesh Agarwal and Others, reported in (2023) 6
SCC 1. Paragraph 80 of the said decision, being relevant for the
present purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow for reference:-
80. Audi alteram partem has several
facets, including the service of a notice to any
person against whom a prejudicial order may be
passed and providing an opportunity to explain
the evidence collected. In Tulsiram Patel, this
Court explained the wide amplitude of audi
alteram partem :
“96. The rule of natural justice
with which we are concerned in these
appeals and writ petitions, namely, the audi
alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude
means that a person against whom an order
to his prejudice may be passed should be
informed of the allegations and charges
against him, be given an opportunity of
submitting his explanation thereto, have the
right to know the evidence, both oral or
documentary, by which the matter is
proposed to be decided against him, and to
inspect the documents which are relied upon
for the purpose of being used against him, to
have the witnesses who are to give evidence
against him examined in his presence and
have the right to cross-examine them, and to
lead his own evidence, both oral and
documentary, in his defence. The process of
a fair hearing need not, however, conform to
the judicial process in a court of law, because
judicial adjudication of causes involves a
number of technical rules of procedure and
evidence which are unnecessary and not
required for the purpose of a fair hearing
within the meaning of audi alteram partem
rule in a quasi-judicial or administrative
inquiry.” (emphasis supplied)
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.571 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
4/8
during execution of Tender Id No. 141673 and 142021
corresponding to Notice Inviting Tender bearing NIT No.
RRSMP-01/2025-26 dated 11.06.2025 and NIT No. RRSMP-
04/2025-26 dated 27.05.2025 under Work Division, Majhaul
Bakhari, the petitioner submitted forged/fake payment
certificate in the said tenders. Learned counsel further submits
that based on such submission the impugned action of
blacklisting was done under the relevant provisions of the Bihar
Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 published vide Notification
No. 8123 dated 19.12.2007. It is further submitted that the
forged document has been brought on record by way of counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which is marked as
Annexure-R1/A.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the allegedly forged payment certificate, which has
been brought on record, does not bear the petitioner’s signature
or that of his authorized agent, which is evident from perusal of
the said document.
7. Upon perusal of the materials on record, it
transpires that the petitioner has challenged Memo No. 12396
dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure-P/22), whereby the Engineer-in-
Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.571 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
5/8
has blacklisted the petitioner for a period of two years on the
allegation that a forged/fake payment certificate was uploaded
along with the tender document.
8. It further appears that prior to passing of the
impugned order, a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner proposing blacklisting on the aforesaid ground. The
said show cause notice was earlier challenged in CWJC No.
20144 of 2025, which came to be disposed of as infructuous in
view of the subsequent passing of the order dated 10.12.2025.
9. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner
submitted a reply dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure-P/21), denying
the allegations and specifically asked for a copy of the said
forged document, and any proof of submission of such
document.
10. The document in question has been brought on
record by way of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State,
which is marked as Annexure-R1/A. Upon perusal thereof, it
prima facie appears that the said document does not bear the
signature of the petitioner or his authorised agent. Further, the
respondents have been unable to show before this Court that the
said copy was supplied to the petitioner before passing of the
impugned order dated 10.12.2025.
Patna High Court CWJC No.571 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
6/8
11. Having considered the submissions advanced and
materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner
was not furnished with the document forming the very basis of
the allegation prior to passing of the impugned order. The
requirement of a fair hearing necessarily includes disclosure of
the material sought to be relied upon against a person.
12. At this juncture, it is pertinent to take note of the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulja
Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL reported in
(2014) 14 SCC 731, relevant portion of which is reproduced as
under:-
“17. …. A fair hearing to the party
being blacklisted thus becomes an essential
precondition for a proper exercise of the power
and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant
thereto….”
13. Further in Krishna Mohan Medical College and
Hospital v. Union of India reported in (2017) 15 SCC 719, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the significance of fair
hearing in administrative proceedings. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced as under:-
“20. ….Reasonable opportunity of
hearing which is synonymous to “fair hearing”,
it is no longer res integra, is an important
Patna High Court CWJC No.571 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
7/8
ingredient of audi alteram partem rule and
embraces almost every facet of fair procedure.
The rule of “fair hearing” requires that the
affected party should be given an opportunity to
meet the case against him effectively and the
right to fair hearing takes within its fold a just
decision supplemented by reasons and rationale.
Reasonable opportunity of hearing or right to
“fair hearing” casts a steadfast and sacrosanct
obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness
in procedure and action, so much so that any
remiss or dereliction in connection therewith
would be at the pain of invalidation of the
decision eventually taken. Every executive
authority empowered to take an administrative
action having the potential of visiting any person
with civil consequences must take care to ensure
that justice is not only done but also manifestly
appears to have been done.”
14. In view of the fact that fair opportunity of hearing
has not been granted to the petitioner, the documents which
formed basis of the impugned order of blacklisting were never
supplied to him, and taking note of decisions of Hon’ble Apex
Court mentioned above, the impugned order of blacklisting
dated 10.12.2025 as contained in Memo No. 12396 is hereby set
aside.
15. The matter is remitted back to the competent
authority, who shall pass an appropriate order in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.571 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
8/8
with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the
stakeholders, and if necessary, granting personal hearing.
16. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the
present writ application stands disposed of.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 30.03.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…