Back
Shields Blacklisting Process: 'Power to Decide Means Power to Start' – Writ Petition Dismissed as Premature
In a ruling echoing restraint in judicial intervention, the dismissed a writ petition by construction firm
Rai Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd.
challenging a show cause notice proposing its blacklisting for allegedly furnishing incorrect tender information. Delivered by a bench of
Honourable Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh
(for himself) and
Honourable Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh
on April 21, 2026, the decision reinforces that courts should rarely quash show cause notices unless glaring jurisdictional flaws exist. As noted in contemporary coverage, this verdict underscores:
"Power To Decide Includes Power To Initiate Proceedings; No Writ Petition Lies Against Blacklisting Show Cause Notice."
Road to Rejection: A Tender Bid Unravels
The saga began with Notice Inviting Tender No. RCD/Rosera/051/2025-26 on August 23, 2025, for widening and strengthening the Ilmas Nagar–Balipur Dumra Road in Bihar's Samastipur district. Only two bidders emerged: petitioner Rai Raj Construction and another. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee initially deemed the petitioner's bid responsive, rejected the rival, and declared it the lowest (L-1) bidder.
But a re-evaluation flipped the script. The committee flagged incorrect details on the firm's "existing commitments," rendering the bid non-responsive. The Departmental Tender Committee ordered re-tendering and action against the firm. Amid a related writ (CWJC No. 4769 of 2026), the Engineer-in-Chief issued the contested show cause notice on March 17, 2026 (Letter No. 1908), proposing 10-year blacklisting under Clause 11(d)(vii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 and Office Order No. 154 (Memo No. 5403, June 18, 2015).
The petitioner sought quashing of the notice, a declaration invalidating the Office Order, and a stay on coercive steps – all before replying to the notice.
Petitioner's Firepower: Bias, Vagueness, and a Closed Door?
Rai Raj's counsel, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, unleashed a barrage: the notice was "arbitrary, without jurisdiction, vague," lacking material particulars. Critically, bias tainted it – the Engineer-in-Chief, issuer of the notice, had joined the earlier committee declaring the bid non-responsive (February 26, 2026), proving a "pre-determined mind." The proposed 10-year blacklist hinted at post-decisional hearing, making reply illusory.
Citing (conclusive findings show closed mind), , Godrej Sara Lee , and J. Sri Nisha , they argued Supreme Court precedent barred such pre-judged processes. Office Order No. 154? Unenforceable, unpublished, not in bidding docs.
State's Counter: Rules Rule, Reply First
Respondents' counsel, Mr. Amish Kumar (AC to AG), parried firmly. The Engineer-in-Chief, as Registering Authority under 2007 Rules, held jurisdiction to issue notice – a mandatory pre-blacklisting step. No vagueness: allegations clearly targeted
"incorrect information on existing commitments."
Bias? A collective committee decision; statutory role trumps.
Petitioner skipped reply, rendering challenge premature. Precedents like Union of India vs. Coastal Containers and backed non-interference at notice stage.
Judicial Dissection: Precedents Draw the Line
The court zeroed in: Is the notice so flawed (jurisdictionless, vague, pre-judged) as to merit intervention pre-decision?
Dismissing prematurity pleas, Justices parsed jurisdiction:
"The power to decide necessarily carries with it the power to initiate proceedings."
Engineer-in-Chief's role is statutorily woven – notice is "inseparable and preliminary."
Vagueness? Rejected – notice pinpoints tender discrepancies; detailed probe awaits reply ( ).
Bias/pre-determination? Distinguished Oryx / Sanjay Jethi (final findings there); here, mere prima facie view, open reply. Collective committee dilutes personal bias ( Coastal Containers ).
Drawing from and , courts abstain unless "wholly without jurisdiction." J. Sri Nisha allows rare interference for patent flaws – absent here. Ramesh Kumar Singh urged exhausting remedies first.
Key Observations: The Bench's Blunt Quotes
-
"Issuance of a show cause notice is not an independent or detached exercise of power, but rather an inseparable and preliminary step in the decision-making process culminating in blacklisting."
(Para 12) -
"Ordinarily no writ lies against a show cause notice unless it is ex facie without jurisdiction."
(Citing Kunisetty Satyanarayana , Para 12) -
"The formation of a prima facie opinion cannot be equated with pre-judgment."
(Para 16) -
"Interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner."
(Citing Vicco Laboratories , Para 13) -
"The impugned show cause notice does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under ... at this stage."
(Para 23)
Final Call: Writ Out, Reply In – Liberty Preserved
No merit; writ dismissed (Para 24). Yet, petitioner free to reply; authority must decide lawfully, unswayed by court remarks (Para 25).
This binds future tender challengers: exhaust notice replies before High Court dash. For Rai Raj, the blacklist clock ticks – but with a fair shot to rebut. A procedural win for Bihar's road builders, signaling judicial patience in administrative gears.
