'Power To Decide Includes Power To Initiate Proceedings; No Writ Petition Lies Against Blacklisting Show Cause Notice': Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that a show cause notice initiating blacklisting proceedings cannot ordinarily be challenged under Article 226, reiterating that the authority empowered to take a final decision is equally competent to initiate the process.A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated...
The Patna High Court has held that a show cause notice initiating blacklisting proceedings cannot ordinarily be challenged under Article 226, reiterating that the authority empowered to take a final decision is equally competent to initiate the process.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 17.03.2026 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Registering Authority proposing blacklisting of the petitioner for alleged furnishing of incorrect information in a tender process.
The dispute arose out of a tender for widening and strengthening of a road, wherein the petitioner was initially declared technically responsive and subsequently emerged as the lowest bidder (L-1). However, upon reevaluation, the authorities found that the petitioner had allegedly furnished incorrect information regarding existing commitments, leading to its disqualification and initiation of blacklisting proceedings.
Challenging the show cause notice, the petitioner contended that it was vague, without jurisdiction, and unsupported by material particulars. The Court framed the issue as whether such a notice suffers from jurisdictional error, vagueness, or pre-determination warranting interference at the pre-decisional stage.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the petition was premature, as the petitioner had not yet submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The Court observed:
“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 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 Court further held that the Engineer-in-Chief, being the designated authority under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, was competent to issue the notice.
Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana and Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories, the Court reiterated that ordinarily no writ lies against a show cause notice unless it is ex facie without jurisdiction.
On the issue of vagueness, the Court held that the notice sufficiently disclosed the allegation (namely furnishing incorrect information in the bidding process) and that detailed adjudication is not required at the notice stage.
The Court also rejected allegations of absence of material and bias, noting that the notice was based on findings of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee and the Departmental Tender Committee, and that mere participation in the earlier process does not establish bias. Holding that the notice was only an initiation of proceedings and not a final determination, the Court declined to interfere.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice.
Case Title: Rai Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4759 of 2026.
Appearance: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Amish Kumar appeared for the Respondent.