Patna High Court Upholds 10-Year Blacklisting Of Contractor For False Work Experience Certificate
The Patna High Court has held that a personal hearing is not necessary where the contractor has been given an opportunity to respond through a show cause notice and his written explanation has been considered before passing the blacklisting order.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma was hearing a petition filed by a contractor challenging his blacklisting by the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation (BSEIDC) for a period of ten years for furnishing a false work experience certificate. The petitioner had participated in a tender floated by BSEIDC for construction of a 10+2 school building. During technical evaluation, the work experience certificate submitted by him was referred for verification and was found to be false and fabricated.
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After he failed to submit a reply, a reminder show cause notice was issued, granting him a further opportunity. In his subsequent reply, the petitioner admitted that the work experience certificate furnished by him was false and sought pardon. The petitioner challenged the blacklisting, arguing that no personal hearing had been afforded to him and that the ten-year penalty was disproportionate.
The Court rejected the contention regarding personal hearing, noting that the petitioner had been given two opportunities to explain his position and that his written reply had been considered before the blacklisting order was passed. It observed:
“The petitioner was served with a show cause notice and thereafter a reminder show cause notice. He also submitted his written explanation, which has been considered before passing the impugned order. In the facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the principles of natural justice have been duly complied with.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner had himself admitted that the work experience certificate was false, observing that “the very basis of the impugned action stands admitted by the petitioner himself.”
On the period of blacklisting, the Court found that the ten-year consequence was specifically prescribed under the BSEIDC Office Order dated 02.06.2022, issued in furtherance of the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2013, for submission of forged or fabricated documents.
The Court further declined to interfere under Article 226, noting that the petitioner had approached the Court only in 2025 against the blacklisting order dated 11.05.2023 without explaining the delay. The Court also found that his claim that the tender had been awarded to him was unsupported by the record.
Holding that the petitioner had failed to approach the Court with clean hands, and that natural justice had been complied with, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.
Case: Ashish Anand v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19292 of 2025
Appearance: For the Petitioner – Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate. For BSEIDC – Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate. For the State – Smt. Binita Singh, S.C. 28.