Courts will not interfere in writ jurisdiction at the stage of a show-cause notice unless the notice is shown to be issued without jurisdiction, reflects a pre-determined mind, or constitutes an abuse of process, as the recipient maintains the opportunity to contest the allegations before the authority.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i) For quashing the Notice to Show Cause as contained in Letter No. 1908 dated 17.03.2026 (Annexure P/5), whereby the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Registering Authority has called upon the petitioner to submit its reply within 15 days as to why, for the alleged furnishing of incorrect information in the tender process, the petitioner be not blacklisted for a period of ten years in terms of Clause 11(d)(vii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 read with Clause 8(4) of Office Order No. 154 contained in Memo No. 5403 dated 18.06.2015;

(ii) For declaration that Office Order No. 154 contained in Memo No. 5403 dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure P/6) does not create any enforceable rights or liabilities, as the same is neither a decision of the State Government nor part of the bidding documents, and has not been published in the Official Gazette;

(iii) For restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action pursuant to the impugned show cause notice during the pendency of the present writ application.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a Notice Inviting Tender No. RCD/Rosera/051/2025-26 dated 23.08.2025 was issued for widening and strengthening of Ilmas Nagar–Balipur Dumra Road. Pursuant thereto, only two bidders participated. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee initially found the petitioner’s bid to be responsive and recommended opening of its financial bid, while rejecting the other bidder. The petitioner was thereafter declared the lowest bidder (L-1).

4. However, subsequently, upon direction for re-evaluation, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee reviewed its earlier decision and found that the petitioner had furnished incorrect information regarding its existing commitments. Consequently, the petitioner’s bid was declared non-responsive, and the Departmental Tender Committee directed re-tendering along with initiation of proceedings against the petitioner.

5. During pendency of the challenge to the said decision in CWJC No. 4769 of 2026, the impugned show cause notice dated 17.03.2026 came to be issued proposing blacklisting of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned show-cause Notice is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and vitiated by serious legal infirmities. It is submitted that the notice is vague, bereft of material particulars, and unsupported by any substantive material. It is further submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notice is vitiated by bias and pre-determination, inasmuch as the Engineer-in-Chief, who has issued the notice, had already participated in the decision dated 26.02.2026 declaring the petitioner’s bid non-responsive and recommending action. It is submitted that the authority has thus already formed a conclusive opinion, rendering the opportunity of hearing illusory.

7. It is further submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notice amounts to a post-decisional hearing and that the indication of proposed punishment of blacklisting for ten years demonstrates pre-judgment. Reliance has been placed on Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.(2010) 13 SCC 427, Union of India & Ors. vs. Sanjay Jethi (2013) 16 SCC 116, M/s. Godrej Sara Lee vs. The Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors, and J. Sri Nisha vs. The Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

8. Per contra, learned c