Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, CJ, ALOK KUMAR SINHA
SIFY Digital Services Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging order of blacklisting (Para 2 , 3 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner's contractual obligations and performance (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments against arbitrary decision-making (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. respondents' defense and compliance with procedures (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's findings and adherence to law (Para 21 , 25) |
| 6. doctrine of proportionality and final judgment (Para 23 , 24 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner in the writ application has prayed for following relief(s):
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, preferably in the nature of certiorari, for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure–P/24), whereby the Petitioner has been blacklisted till 31.03.2026 and the contract has been terminated.
(ii) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondents to recall and withdraw the impugned order, and to restore the Petitioner’s eligibility to participate in future tenders issued by the Respondent Department.”
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the
The court upheld that procedural due process in blacklisting was maintained, with findings of serious operational failures justifying disciplinary action against the vendor, affirming compliance with....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair hearing, specific show cause notices, and proportionate punishment before imposing blacklisting in government contracts.
Natural justice requires that prior notice be given before penalties such as blacklisting; however, if adequate opportunity and communication are established, decisions can stand.
Indefinite blacklisting without defined duration and proper procedural fairness is arbitrary, violating natural justice principles and requiring a clear basis for such action.
The impugned actions of issuing the show cause notice and blacklisting the petitioner were arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violated principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the requiremen....
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 discretion of the accepting authority in tender matters and the importance of truthful declarations in tender submissions.
Judicial review in tendering must focus on lawfulness over soundness; a bidder's failure to disclose critical past conduct can lead to disqualification without notice.
The court upheld the administrative decision of blacklisting the petitioner firm, emphasizing the need for restraint in interfering with administrative decisions.
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
