Patna High Court
M/s Ganpati Infra,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The blacklisting order is set aside and the case remitted for a fresh show‑cause notice and a reasoned hearing.
Summary
M/s Ganpati Infra challenged a blacklisting order issued under Clause 11(Ka)(ii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, alleging that the authority ignored its reply to a show‑cause notice and acted arbitrarily. The petitioner had previously been debarred by a 2024 order that was later set aside by this Court. A fresh show‑cause notice was issued in April 2025, but the authority proceeded on the premise that no reply was filed, despite the petitioner’s dated response. The Court found the impugned order to be a non‑application of mind, violative of natural justice, and set it aside. The matter was remitted to the authority to issue a new show‑cause notice, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order.
Issues considered
- Whether the blacklisting order under Clause 11(Ka)(ii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 is valid in view of the earlier debarment order being set aside.
- Whether the authority correctly considered the petitioner’s reply to the show‑cause notice.
- Whether the order suffers from non‑application of mind and arbitrariness, violating principles of natural justice.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 — s. Clause 11(Ka)(ii)
Subjects
- blacklisting
- debarment
- contractors registration
- natural justice
- show‑cause notice
- administrative law
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8660 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Ganpati Infra, a Partnership Firm, (formerly known as V.S. Associates)
having its Registered Office at Gola Road More, 2nd Floor, Vivekanand Villa,
Ram Jaipal Nagar, Danapur, Patna through its Partner Amarjeet Ravi, Male,
aed about 37 years, Son of Sri Vinay Kumar Chaudhary, Resident of
Vivekanand Villa, Ram Jaipal Nagar, P.S. Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited, (A
Government of Bihar Undertaking) having its Registered office at 2nd and
3rd Floor, Swasthya Bhawan, Behind IGIMS, Sheikhpura, Patna through its
Managing Director.
3. The Managing Director, the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Limited (A Government of Bihar Undertaking) having its
Registered Office at 2nd and 3rd Floor, Swasthya Bhawan, Behind IGIMS,
Sheikhpura, Patna.
4. The Chief General Manager, the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Limited (A Government of Bihar Undertaking) having its
Registered Office at 2nd and 3rd Floor, Swasthya Bhawan, Behind IGIMS,
Sheikhpura, Patna.
5. The Deputy General Manager (Design), the Bihar Medical Services and
Infrastructure Corporation Limited (A Government of Bihar Undertaking)
having its Registered Office at 2nd and 3rd Floor, Swasthya Bhawan,
Behind IGIMS, Sheikhpura, Patna.
6. The Deputy General Manager (Project), Bihar Medical Services and
Infrastructure Corporation Limited (A Government of Bihar Undertaking),
Regional Office, Bhagalpur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
3 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8660 of 2025(3) dt.08-05-2026
2/4
2. Following is the relief sought for in the present writ
application:-
“(I) Quashing of the Order contained in
Letter No. 844 dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P/25)
passed by the Chief General Manager (Project)
upon approval by the Managing Director of the
Corporation to the extent that the petitioner has
been blacklisted for a period of two years in terms
of Clause 11 (Ka) (ii) of the Bihar Contractors
Registration Rule, 2007; and
(II) Restraining the Respondents from
giving effect to the Letter No. 844 dated 28.04.2025
during the pendency of the present writ application
and/or without the leave of this Hon’ble Court.”
3. A limited prayer has been made challenging the
impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for
a period of two years on the allegation of the violation of Clause
11 (Ka) (ii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
certain facts are relevant for adjudication of the present case. It
is submitted that prior to the impugned order of blacklisting, the
petitioner had already been debarred vide Letter No. 252 dated
12.03.2024. The said order of debarment was challenged before
this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8269 of 2024 and the same was set
aside vide Order dated 25.03.2025.
5. It is further submitted that thereafter, a fresh show-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8660 of 2025(3) dt.08-05-2026
3/4
cause was issued vide Letter No. 458 dated 15.04.2025
proposing blacklisting of the petitioner. One of the grounds
taken therein was the earlier blacklisting of the petitioner vide
Letter No. 252 dated 12.03.2024, despite the fact that the said
order had already been set aside by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court.
6. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to
the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a
detailed reply dated 21.04.2025 which was duly received by the
authorities on the same date. However, while passing the
impugned order contained in Letter No. 844 dated 28.04.2025,
the authorities proceeded on the premise that no reply had been
submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. Prima
facie, the said finding appears to be factually incorrect.
7. It is submitted that in the reply dated 21.04.2025
(Annexure-P/24), the petitioner had specifically brought certain
relevant facts to the notice of the authority concerned and had
also sought certain documents from the respondents. However,
without considering the same, the impugned order has been
passed which, in the opinion of this Court, suffers from non-
application of mind and arbitrariness.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8660 of 2025(3) dt.08-05-2026
4/4
the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the authority concerned, who shall issue a fresh show-
cause and, after granting adequate opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner, pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the
present writ application stands allowed.
10. 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.