The correctness of disclosures and declarations in tender documents is crucial, and the consequences of incorrect disclosures can lead to blacklisting.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

An order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, whereby Shital Prasad Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner No.1) has been blacklisted for ten years in exercise of the powers under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules (Rural Works Department), 2007, is under challenge in the present writ application. An appeal was preferred against the said order of blacklisting, which has been dismissed by the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, by an order dated 18.02.2021, which has also been put to challenge in the present writ application.

2. It appears from the pleadings on record that the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by a letter dated 27.03.2018 issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department (Works Division), Sherghati, in the light of departmental letters dated 18.08.2015 and 21.03.2018. The said letter dated 18.08.2015 has not been brought on record. The letter dated 21.03.2018 was admittedly enclosed with the said letter dated 27.03.2018.

3. The petitioner appears to have not responded to the said communication dated 27.03.2018. Nearly nine months thereafter, another letter was sent to him, vide Memo No.2806 dated 26.12.2018, asking the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner is said to have submitted his explanation in response to the said letters dated 27.03.2018 and 26.12.2018 on 22.02.2019, a copy of which has been brought on record by way of Annexure 4 to the writ application. The said explanation apparently does not deal with the contents of the letter dated 18.08.2018, in respect of which the petitioner was required to submit his explanation through communication dated 27.03.2018 and 26.12.2018. There is no statement in the said so-called explanation submitted by the petitioner on 22.02.2019 that the petitioner was not aware of the letter dated 18.08.2015 and the contents thereof. He simply stated in his explanation that he had submitted the tender documents online and the petitioner had no role to play in the decision making process while deciding tenders.

4. Considering the nature of the petitioner’s explanation, the competent authority passed the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had concealed the fact about his existing commitments about two projects which were pending with him, while submitting his tender.

5. Petitioner’s technical bid was approved because it had not made correct disclosure and suppressed the fact regarding pending projects with him against the Clause: `existing commitments’.

6. Considering the petitioner’s conduct, the Chief Engineer passed the aforesaid impugned order of blacklisting. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of blacklisting, which has been rejected by an order dated 18.02.2021 by the departmental Secretary, which is also being assailed in the present writ application, as has been noted above.

7. Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of blacklisting has been passed for alleged suppression of material facts in relation to the tender issued, vide Reference No.BR-12R-249A, which was cancelled and subsequent thereto, the same was re-tendered, vide Reference No.2012-6923-BR-12R-249-310. He submits that there would be no question of suppression in a tender process which stood cancelled. He has accordingly submitted that the impugned orders require interference.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, wherein it has been stated that pursuant to the NIT bearing Tender I.D. No.2012 ECBIH-4631-1, Tender Reference No.BR-12R-249-E8 dated 15.02.2012 for construction work of road from Majhaulia to Karjara under PMGSY Scheme under Works Division, Shergharti, Gaya, the petitioner had participated. Another Contractor, namely, Ranjan Kumar Singh, had also participated. After acceptance of the