Click the Play button to listen to article

The Patna High Court has held that the principles of natural justice require an affected party to be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse decision is taken, but do not require authorities to provide “repeated or endless opportunities” until they are satisfied with the explanation offered.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma made the observation while refusing to interfere with the three-year blacklisting of a sanitation services contractor by the Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park, Patna.

The petitioner, M/s Cobra Industrial Security Forces (India) Ltd., had challenged the order dated May 18, 2026, by which it was blacklisted for three years from participating in tenders floated by the department. The authorities had also cancelled its work order, terminated the agreement and forfeited its bank guarantee of Rs.6,64,111.

The dispute arose from a tender issued in August 2025 for providing sanitation services at the Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park for one year. The petitioner emerged as the successful bidder and thereafter entered into an agreement for the period from February 1, 2026 to January 31, 2027.

During the subsistence of the contract, the authorities issued a communication alleging deficiencies in the execution of the work and called upon the petitioner to explain why the agreement should not be cancelled and it should not be blacklisted. The petitioner responded that the deficiencies had been rectified.

A subsequent communication alleged misbehaviour by one of the sanitation workers deployed by the petitioner with a visitor. The petitioner responded on the same day, stating that the workers concerned had been removed from service.

The petitioner argued before the High Court that whenever deficiencies were pointed out, corrective measures were immediately taken and appropriate replies were submitted. Despite this, the authorities allegedly passed the blacklisting order without providing an effective opportunity of hearing.

The High Court, however, found from the impugned order that the authorities had recorded a series of defaults and deficiencies during the execution of the contract and had repeatedly called upon the petitioner to explain them. The petitioner had admittedly submitted replies and undertaken corrective measures on certain occasions.

Rejecting the plea that the blacklisting order violated natural justice, the Court observed:

“…The requirement of the principles of natural justice is to afford a reasonable opportunity to the affected party before an adverse decision is taken. It does not contemplate repeated or endless opportunities until the authority is satisfied with the explanation offered. Once the affected party has been informed of the allegations and afforded an opportunity to submit its response, the requirement of audi alteram partem stands substantially complied with.”

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257, noting that blacklisting is a recognised power of the State which can be exercised in public interest, provided the action is fair, reasonable and preceded by compliance with the principles of natural justice. It further observed that while a blacklisting order cannot be passed without complying with natural justice and the notice must fairly apprise the affected party of the proposed action, the petitioner in the present case had been repeatedly informed about the alleged deficiencies and warned of consequential action.

The petitioner, therefore, could not claim that it had been taken by surprise or denied an opportunity to put forward its case, the Court held. The Bench further reiterated that the scope of interference under Article 226 in matters arising from government contracts and tender conditions is limited. Unless an administrative decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or contrary to statutory provisions, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over such decisions.

Finding no procedural unfairness or arbitrariness in the decision-making process, the Court noted that the competent authority had assigned reasons and considered the petitioner's explanations. The mere fact that the petitioner disputed the findings could not justify reappreciation of the factual determination in writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: M/s Cobra Industrial Security Forces (India) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10278 of 2026

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bijay Shankar Choubey, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Anil Kr. Verma, AC to AAG-9

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: