Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 1252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, CJ., PARTHA SARTHY, J.
M/s Vivid Offset through its partner Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11244, 11378, 11386, 11437, 11786, 12503 of 2025
Decided On : 13-08-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Tendering and Contract Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Importance of proper notice prior to penalties, especially with severe consequences such as blacklisting, is emphasized. However, court concludes there was substantive compliance as respondents issued multiple notices and considered petitioners' responses before blacklisting. (Paras 26, 28, 33)
Facts of the case:
The case revolves around multiple writ petitions filed for the quashing of blacklisting orders issued by a State agency against printers for failure to deliver educational materials on time. The petitioners argued that show cause notices were improperly issued without specific mention of blacklisting, and further stated delays were due to changes enforced by the respondents. (Paras 1, 2, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld that the timely delivery stipulated in the General Conditions of Contract was not adhered to and that adequate opportunities to respond were provided. The authority's decisions, based on records of communication and timelines, did not constitute arbitrariness. (Paras 20, 32)
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the legality and fairness of the blacklisting process, particularly the following: adequacy of notice regarding blacklisting and adherence to the delivery timelines as per the contract. (Paras 6, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that all essential procedural safeguards were observed, highlighting the necessity of delivering educational materials timely under the contract terms. It further asserted that while natural justice principles are critical, the factual context showed compliance by the authority in communicating with the petitioners. (Paras 20, 24, 34)
Result: All writ petitions dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Ms. Aradhana Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Bimal Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Advocate Ms. Priti Mahato, Advocate Mr. Ajay, GA-5 Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to blacklisting process (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against blacklisting procedure (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's analysis on blacklisting validity (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. importance of reasoned decisions (Para 25) |
| 5. dismissal of petitions upheld (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, CJ.
The present batch of writ petitions is filed by the petitioners challenging the order of blacklisting passed by the respondent against respective petitioners for a period of one year. The issue involved in these petitions is similar and, therefore, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that all these petitions be heard together and the same be disposed of by a common judgment. Thus, at the joint request of learned advocates, we have taken up the petitions for final disposal, as requested.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in C.W.J.C. No. 11437 of 2025 are stated as under:
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) issued E notice inviting tender (in short ‘NIT’) from eligible printers for printing and supply of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (in short ‘SSA’) text books for Class-I to Class-VIII Class/ Standardwise, Districtwise and Languagewise under SSA for the academic year 2025-2026 which will be delivered to 548 Block Resources Centres in 38 districts within the State of Bihar.
3.1. The petitioner participated in the said NIT and was declared successful. The work order dated 14.11.2024 for printing, binding, set making and supply of text book of Hindi, Urdu and mixed medium under Package-52 for Class-VI in the districts of Araria, Banka and West Champaran was issued. Similarly, another work order for Package-58 for Class-VII in the districts of Begusarai, Samastipur and Sheohar was also issued in favour of the petitioner.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents finally approved the dummy/proof of books and intimated the final date of approval of books on 03.12.2024. Similarly, on 06.12.2024, respondent No. 6 had approved the books of other printers. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that the concerned respondent, from time to time, changed the cover page, design and size of books and, therefore, various correspondences took place between the parties. It is further stated that final date of approval of books was 27.12.2024 and as per Clause-8.1 of the tender document, printers shall have to deliver the books to concerned Blocks within 105 days from the date of final approval of dummy/proof and as per Clause-12(A) (i) of the tender document, no penalty would be levied till 15 days from completion of 105 days. Thus, the printers shall have to deliver the books at the destination within 120 days of approval by respondent No. 6.
3.3. Respondent No. 5 issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2025 to the concerned printers in light of Clause-8 Part-II Note (iii). It has been mentioned therein that Corporation reserves its right to withdraw upto 50% of the contract/work order, if the printer does not complete 50% of quantum of total contract on 75th day from the date of approval of final proof reading without issuing any prior notice. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 05.03.2025 respondent No. 5 had directed the petitioner to print and supply 5 extra books of Urdu/mixed medium along with diary Hindi medium. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 issued show cause notice dated 05.03.2025 and asked to show cause for not delivering 50% books of total contract. Immediately thereafter, on 18.03.2025 respondent No. 5 published a chart along with percentage of delivery of books and convened a meeting of printers with direction to appear with up-to-date progress report. Thereafter, once again on 25.03.2025 respondent No. 5 issued show cause notice to the petitioner about non-supplying the books on time.
3.4. Petitioner has further stated that on 21
