Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. Bajanthri, CJ, ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
SIFY Digital Services Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13538 of 2025
Decided On : 14-10-2025
Government Contract – Black-listing – Lapses committed by petitioner in conduct of Competency Test-2 examination – Principles of natural justice were duly complied with and petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to present its case – There is no material on record to substantiate any allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness – Impugned order is a reasoned administrative decision, based on documentary evidence, factual findings, and admitted lapses on part of petitioner – Irregularities were serious operational failures that struck at the very foundation of examination system, thereby undermining its fairness, reliability, and integrity – Lapses were serious and attributable solely to petitioner's negligence and inadequate supervision – Magnitude of default clearly justified disciplinary action by respondent authority in exercise of its contractual and administrative powers – Failures of petitioner were grave, systemic, and detrimental to sanctity of examination process and cannot be categorized as minor or technical lapses – Respondent's action in treating these lapses as serious operational failures stands fully justified – Failures of petitioner were grave, systemic, and detrimental to sanctity of examination process, and cannot be categorized as minor or technical lapses – Respondent's action in treating these lapses as serious operational failures stands fully justified. (Para 24)
Government Contract – Black-listing – In Law, admission made by a party, especially when made voluntarily and without coercion, constitutes best form of evidence against maker thereof and requires no further corroboration unless successfully retracted with plausible justification, which is conspicuously absent in present case – Impugned order of blacklisting was passed not on conjecture or suspicion, but on self-admitted lapses duly supported by documentary evidence, inquiry reports, and expert opinions from both SCERT and BSEB – Respondent's decision stands on firm legal and factual foundation and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjustified in any manner – Deliberate reduction of blacklisting duration, from an indefinite period to a time-bound measure, demonstrates that penalty now imposed is neither excessive nor arbitrary; rather, it is commensurate with gravity of proven misconduct – Impugned order does not warrant any interference – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 24, 25 and 26)
| 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 order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure–P/1), passed by Respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from participating in any future tenders issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, up to 31.03.2026. The said order, it is contended, is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking, and in violation of the directions passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.1292 of 2025, decided on 16.04.2025, wherein the earlier order of blacklisting dated 31.12.2024 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s defence in accordance with law.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013. The present petition has been instituted through Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, AGM (Operations), who is an Indian citizen duly authorized by virtue of Board Resolutions dated 20.10.2023, 07.08.2025 and Authority Letter dated 10.01.2025, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure–P/2 to P/4 to this writ petition.
5. It is submitted that on 22.09.2023, Respondent No.1 floated a Request for Proposal (RFP) bearing NIT No. Online Examination/Educational/2023/01 for “Selection of Agency to Setup Online Examination System and Conduct Online Examinations (Computer Based Test)”. The scope of work included end-to-end provisioning of facilities for conducting Computer Based Tests (CBT), including necessary hardware, manpower, and technical requirements (Annexure– P/5). Pursuant to the pre-bid clarifications issued on 09.10.2023 (Annexure–P/6), it was categorically stated by the respondents that the question papers would be provided by BSEB/SCERT, and the bidder was only to provide a Question Paper Authoring Tool (QP Authoring Tool).
6. Upon evaluation of bids, the petitioner was declared L1, and a Letter of Intent dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure–P/7) was issued in its favour. The contract was formally executed on 13.03.2024 (Annexure–P/8), for a period of five years, extendable by two years, at the rate of ₹170 per candidate (excluding GST). The petitioner duly furnished the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.10 lakhs in compliance with the contractual terms. Clause 12 of the Contract empowered the Respondent to terminate and blacklist the vendor only upon the occurrence of specified events and after issuance of a 30-day written notice, followed by a further 15 days’ notice before blacklisting, as detailed in the Note appended to Clause 12.1.
7. It is submitted that, after the award of contract, the petitioner successfully conducted several large-scale examinations for the Department, including BSSTET 2023, CTT-1 2024, D.El.Ed 2024, Simultala Residential School Pravesh Pariksha 2024, and STET 2024, wherein over 15,25,450 candidates appeared without any complaint of irr
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.
Blacklisting a contractor for submitting a false experience certificate requires clear proof of intentional wrongdoing; failure to provide such evidence renders the action disproportionate.
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.
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
