Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, HARISH KUMAR
Suraj Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Harish Kumar, J. – We have heard Mr. Ashish Giri, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amish Jha, learned Government Advocate.
2. The writ petitioner, a registered Class-I contractor under the Rural Works Division, Government of Bihar on being aggrieved by the order of blacklisting as contained in Memo No. 668 dated 06.02.2024, has preferred the present writ petition seeking quashing of the same, issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for four years.
3. The short facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are that in response to the NIT dated 16.08.2023, which dealt with various construction works including the work at Sl. No. 16 for construction of RCC HL bridge at 3rd Km of Kamalpur Kanuali Road, in the district of Supaul, the petitioner submitted his tender. The value of the work was of Rs. 629.792 lakhs.
4. As per the instructions of the bidders, Class-IV provided for the qualification criteria of the bidder. The relevant criteria for the present case being Clause 4.5 contemplates as follows: –
"Satisfactorily completed as a prime contractor (or as a nominated subcontractor, where the subcontract involved executio
Blacklisting as a penalty requires clear proof of intentional misconduct, and actions taken based on allegations alone may be deemed disproportionate and legally untenable.
The decision to blacklist a contractor must be made with fairness, relevance, natural justice, non-discrimination, equality, and proportionality in mind. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
