Court emphasizes strict adherence to natural justice and rejects petition citing petitioner's misleading claims and delay in filing writ petition.
In a significant judgment delivered on August 6, 2026, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, dismissed the writ petition filed by Ashish Anand challenging his blacklisting by the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation (BSEIDC). The petitioner had been blacklisted for ten years for submitting a forged work experience certificate during the tender process for a school building construction project in Purnea.
The petitioner sought quashing of the blacklisting order dated May 11, 2023, claiming that he was technically qualified, awarded the contract, and had commenced work. He also cited his unconditional apology and the passage of over two years since the order as mitigating factors to revoke the blacklisting and allow him to participate in future tenders.
However, the Court found that the petitioner's assertions regarding award and commencement of work were false and contradicted by official records. The respondents produced a verification report from the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Supaul, confirming that the work experience certificate was fabricated. It was further clarified that the petitioner was never declared technically qualified, nor was any work order issued or work started. The petitioner's failure to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claims led the Court to conclude that the petitioner attempted to mislead the Court with false statements.
The Court noted the petitioner's unexplained delay of nearly two years in approaching the Court and emphasized the fundamental principle that a litigant invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, fully disclose material facts, and not suppress or misrepresent facts. Citing authoritative Supreme Court precedents such as K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, and Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that suppression or distortion of facts disentitles the petitioner from equitable relief.
Regarding the blacklisting procedure, the Court observed that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated January 25, 2023, followed by a reminder notice on March 21, 2023, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner submitted a written reply on March 27, 2023, admitting the submission of the false certificate and tendering an apology. The blacklisting order was passed thereafter, strictly in accordance with the BSEIDC Office Order dated June 2, 2022, and the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2013, which mandate blacklisting for ten years for contractors submitting forged documents.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India, highlighting that blacklisting is a legitimate and recognized exercise of the State's power to protect its contractual integrity, provided the process is fair and rational. The judgment in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) was also cited, confirming that issuance of a show cause notice and giving a meaningful opportunity to the affected party are essential before blacklisting.
In conclusion, the Patna High Court upheld the blacklisting order, refused to interfere with the action taken by BSEIDC, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court underscored the importance of integrity and fairness in public procurement and warned against attempts to undermine the judicial process through misleading statements.
Bottom Line:
Blacklisting order for furnishing false work experience certificate upheld - Petitioner's admission of furnishing false certificate and subsequent apology considered - Compliance with principles of natural justice and applicable rules affirmed - Relief denied due to lack of clean hands and unexplained delay in approaching the court.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2013
Ashish Anand v. State of Bihar, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980382
