The authority to blacklist a contractor lies with the party privy to the contract, and any action taken without jurisdiction breaches natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.

We have heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Advocate for the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. The Government Advocate is also heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is confined to the order contained in letter no. 691/2023 dated 20.10.2023 issued by respondent no.4 by which the petitioner has been debarred from working for examinations conducted by Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) for three years. The petitioner has been further blacklisted for three years from any work with the Board.

3. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 through its authorized representative, in response to the NIT issued by the Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BELTRON’) submitted its bid. The tender notice was issued for selection of agency for providing services related to “Computer Based Test” of Education Department of Government of Bihar. The petitioner having been the lowest bidder and successful in all respects, was awarded the contract. The Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner by the BELTRON. Pursuant to the issuance of Letter of Intent, a service agreement was entered between the BELTRON and the petitioner on 30.08.2022. The copy of the agreement is produced as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

4. Learned Senior Advocate has taken this Court to the agreement and referring to the various prescriptions contended that the period of contract was two years and as per the agreement the BELTRON was to dispense fees and charges to the petitioner. The terms of the agreement, inter alia, also contained the detailed scope of work. It was also said that the terms, which were not specifically mentioned and otherwise shall be covered by the tender document, which forms part of the terms and conditions of the contract. After the commencement of the contract, various examinations were conducted by the petitioner. However, with respect to some of the examinations certain disturbances and delay had occurred in conducting the examination, not attributable to the petitioner. The instances have been elaborately mentioned in the writ petition. However, the same is not required to be dealt with here for the purposes of adjudicating the issue raised by the learned Senior Advocate, before us.

5. Due to the alleged negligence attributable to the petitioner in conducting certain examinations of the Board, different show-cause notices were issued by the Board to the petitioner seeking its explanation.

6. In response to the show-cause notices, the copies of which have been annexed in the writ petition, the writ petitioner submitted its response in defence. The response of the petitioner had been considered. However, the respondent Board has found the reply unsatisfactory. The negligent, erratic and irresponsible approach by the petitioner in conducting the computer based examination is said to be the basis for passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023, the copy of which is produced as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

7. By the aforenoted order, the petitioner had been debarred from working for examinations conducted by the Board as STET, D.El.Ed., Joint Entrance Exam, Simultala Residential School Entrance Examination and other such examinations for three years. The petitioner has further been put under Blacklist for three years relating to the work of the Board.

8. Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner has questioned the impugned order on the ground that the same is passed in a most mechanical manner without considering the explanation/reply of the writ petitioner by merely recording that the reply filed by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that the contract was entered into by the petitioner and the respondent BELTRON, but the impugned order