Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 06‑11‑2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s Shailcon Construction (partner Akshay Kumar); Respondents – State of Bihar (Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department), Engineer‑In‑Chief, Water Resources Department, Engineer‑In‑Chief, Rural Works Department, Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department (Siwan‑1), Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department (Gopalganj‑2).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil writ petition (Case No.4915 of 2026) seeking quashing of a notice to show cause and subsequent blacklisting order under Clause 11 (Ka)(vii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007.
  • Key Dates: Tender notice issued 12‑Jul‑2025; Show‑cause notice dated 8‑Jan‑2026; Petitioner’s reply filed 19‑Jan‑2026; Blacklisting order (Memo No. 1295) dated 9‑Mar‑2026; Judgment delivered 6‑Nov‑2026.
  • Allegations: Petitioner allegedly submitted a forged payment certificate purportedly issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department on 16‑May‑2024, to support its bid for the high‑level bridge construction and six‑year maintenance work (Tender No. RWD/MMGSY (Awashesh‑Gen)/HQ/ET/2025/07).
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: Claimed the certificate was handed over by an employee of the Rural Works Department, matched TDS amounts in Form 26AS, and that the blacklisting period (10 years) exceeded the validity of its registration (until 18‑Jun‑2030). Also argued that the appeal remedy under Rule 11(e) was ineffective and challenged the departmental letter prescribing a 10‑year punishment.
  • Respondents’ Position: Asserted the certificate was forged, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee disqualified the petitioner on 16‑Dec‑2025, and the blacklisting order was lawful under the Rules and prior Supreme Court judgments.
  • Court Findings: The certificate was verified as forged; the petitioner’s reply did not rebut the allegation; Rule 11 of the Rules expressly provides for blacklisting on submission of forged documents. The court noted that while the power to blacklist is inherent, when exercised by a State instrumentality it is subject to natural‑justice and proportionality, which were satisfied in this case.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the blacklisting order dated 9‑Mar‑2026 was legally sound and contained adequate reasons.
  • The writ petition seeking quashing of the notice and the blacklisting order was dismissed.
  • No relief was granted to the petitioner; the 10‑year blacklisting remains in effect.

Topics: Contractor Blacklisting, Administrative Law