IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16811 of 2025 ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Son of Shri Gorelal Singh, Resident of Hathidah, Ward No. 13, Police Station- Hathidah, District- Patna (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Managing Director cum Chairman, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited 2. The Managing Director-cum-Chairman, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Patna, Bihar. 3. The General Manager (Public Distribution) Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Patna, Bihar. 4. The District Transport Committee, Khagaria through its Chairman cum District Magistrate, Khagaria. 5. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Transport Committee Khagaria. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Vice Chairman, District Transport Committee, Khagaria. 7. The District Transport Officer-cum-member, District Transport Committee, Khagaria. 8. The District Manager-cum-Member Secretary, District Transport Committee, Khagaria. 9. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Khagaria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Saket Gupta, Advocate Mr. Aditya Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General 05 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 3 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 2/11 2. The present writ application has been filed for the following reliefs: “i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 4721 dated 22.06.2023 by which the Respondent No. 3 has cancelled the Tender No. 1350 dated 07.11.2022. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the appellate order 19.11.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the Respondent No. 2 has upheld the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the District Transport Committee, Khagaria by which the District Transport Committee, Khagaria passed an order for cancellation of the agreement executed with the petitioner, black listing the petitioner for three years and further forfeiting the EMD and the Security Deposit. iii. Till the pendency of this writ application, stay the operation of impugned order dated 19.11.2024. iv. For any other relief/ reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner participated in NIT No. 1350, SFC Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 3/11 Khagaria, dated 07.11.2022. The said tender was issued for selection and empanelment of transportation contractors. The petitioner after being declared successful in the said bid, entered into a contract with the respondent-Corporation. After discharging his contractual obligation for around 3.5 months, a show cause notice dated 05.06.2023 was served to the petitioner, wherein certain discrepancies with respect to the documents submitted (Turnover Certificate and Profit and Loss account, etc.) by the petitioner were pointed out. In reply to the said show cause notice, petitioner duly submitted his reply dated 12.06.2023. However, vide Memo No. 871 dated 13.06.2023, an order was passed for cancellation of the executed agreement, blacklisting the petitioner for three years, and further forfeiting the EMD security deposit. Further vide order dated 22.06.2023, the tender was cancelled and a recommendation for fresh tender was issued. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director of the Corporation on 19.06.2023, which was kept pending. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 10498 of 2023, whereby a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent-Corporation to dispose of the said appeal. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2024, passed by the respondent No. 2 to the Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 4/11 present petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the books of account of the petitioner had been duly audited by a registered Chartered Accountant (CA), and the same fact is substantiated by the reference of the UDIN number in the audit reports issued by the CA. Learned counsel further submits that since the audit of books of accounts of the petitioner for Financial Year 2019-20, and 2020-21 were done on the same day, therefore both the reports bear ‘same date.’ Further, same UDIN number on the Turnover Certificate, and the Audit Report for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21 were due to an error on part of the CA. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such wrong documents were not intentionally submitted by the petitioner, and as such cannot be termed as ‘forged.’ Learned counsel further submits that the authenticity of such documents were not an essential requirement for evaluation of the bids, and therefore, the order of blacklisting and forfeiture of EMD passed by the respondent-Department is not justified. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner submitted a forged Audit report for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21, and thus, in accordance with law and Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 5/11 after following due procedure, the agreement was cancelled and penal actions were imposed against him. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that all documents which were required to be submitted as per the NIT would be relevant consideration for evaluation of bids. As such, the respondent- Corporation can take action while considering the same under relevant clauses of NIT. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case, the petitioner is found to be in violation of Clause 10 (iii) and 10 (x) of the NIT. 7. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 19.11.2024, dismissed the said appeal after taking into consideration the following grounds: “fuxe eq[;ky; ds egkizca/kd foRr ,oa vkarfjd foRrh; lykgdkj }kjk fd;s x;s tkap esa ik;k x;k fd Jh dqekj } kjk lefiZr vkWfMV fjiksVZ foRrh; o’kZ 2019&20 ,oa 2020&21 esa ,d gh UDIN No. 22079889AYACRQ8990 vafdr gS] tks vkifRrtud gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk viuh iqjkuh rF;ksa dks nqgjkrs gq, dgk x;k fd pkVZMZ ,dkmUVsUV dh xyrh ls ,d gh UDIN lHkh dkxtkrksa ij vafdr gks x;k] mUgsa Hkwy lq/kkj djus rFkk dkyh lwph ls eqDr djrs gq, ;kfpdkdrkZ dk dk;Z vkoafVr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA nwljh rjQ ftyk izca/kd] [kxfM+;k }kjk i=kad 1328 fnukad&13-11-2024 ls izfrosnu miyC/k djkrs gq, Li’V fd;k x;k fd ftyk ifjogu lfefr] [kxfM+;k }kjk Jh panu dqekj ds NIT esa Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 6/11 Uploaded vfHkJoksa ds tkWapksijkUr ikbZ xbZ folaxfr;ksa ds fo:) ftls Lo;a Jh panu dqekj ds }kjk Lohdkj Hkh fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk ,djkjukek ds le; fn;s x, “kiFk&i= ftlds fcUnq 06 esa Li’V% mYysf[kr gS fd ^^eSa rduhdh chM ds fy;s dksbZ Hkh QthZ dkxtkr layXu ugha fd;k gwaA ;fn p;u djrs le; ;k p;u ds ckn mi;qZDr esa ls dksbZ Hkh ckrs xyr vFkok vlR; lkfcr gqbZ rks esjh fufonk dks jn~n djrs gq, esjs fo:) dkuwuh ,oa vuq”kklfud dkjZokbZ dh tk ldrh gS^^A mDr ds vkyksd esa fnuakd&13-06-2023 dks lEiUu ftyk ifjogu lfefr] [kxfM+;k dh cSBd esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd ifjogu vfHkdrkZ Jh dqekj }kjk ,djkjukek dh dafMdk&10(III) ,oa 10(X) dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA rnkyksd esa ftyk ifjogu lfefr] [kxfM+;k }kjk Jh dqekj dk ,djkjukek rRdky izHkko ls jn~n djrs gq;s vxys rhu o’kksZa ds fy, dkyh lwph esa Mkyk x;kA lkFk gh buds tek vxz/ku dh jkf”k ,oa lqjf{kr tek jkf”k dks tCr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus rFkk jf{kr vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls ;g Li’V gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk NIT No. 1350 fnukad&07-11-2022 esa mYYksf[kr dafMdk 10(iii) ,oa (x) dk Li’V rkSj ij mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS rFkk ftyk ifjogu lfefr] [kxfM+;k ds fnukad&13-06-2023 dks fy, x, fu.kZ; ls eSa iw.kZr% larq’V gwaA fufonk ds lHkh “krksZa dk vuqikyu djuk ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ftEesnkjh Fkh] ftldk vuqikyu v{kj”k% ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk u djds fu;eksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k] tks ,djkjukek dk mYya?ku gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vuqjks/k ij fopkj djuk] vijk/k dks c<+kok nsuk gh gksxkA vkosnu vLohd`rA ” 8. Having considered the submissions advanced and Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 7/11 upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that the petitioner had submitted Audit Report for FY 2019-20, and Audit Report for FY 2020-21 with the same UDIN number. However, as per the requirements a separate and distinct UDIN number is required for each individual document. In absence of a distinct UDIN for each document, serious doubts are raised about genuineness and authenticity of the submitted documents. 9. Further, it is also not in dispute that the respondent- Corporation had the power to cancel the agreement, and impose penal actions against the petitioner under relevant clauses of NIT, which is reproduced as under: “10. Disqualification Condition: (iii) Suppression of any fact/ any misleading act/ declaring false information as regards former selections in any district to the other bided district/s will amount to mala-fide intention of the bidder to mislead the District Tender Committee. In such case, contract, whether executed or not with the bidder in any district shall be terminated forthwith along with the forfeiture of EMD/Security Deposit. Further she/he shall be blacklisted and consequently not allowed to participate in any tender for next five years. ... ... Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 8/11 (x) If any of the documents submitted in Technical or financial bids of the tender found forged or tampered in, the bid will be rejected and appropriate lawful action will be taken against the bidder. At the same time, she/he/they will be blacklisted and consequently barred from taking part for next five years in the future tender and EMD will be forfeited.” 10. After going through the impugned order, and terms and conditions of tender, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action taken against the petitioner, i.e., cancellation of agreement, forfeiture of EMD, and blacklisting for three years could not be said to be disproportionate. Therefore, the order impugned also qualifies on the test of doctrine of proportionality. 11. In Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2012) 11 SCC 257, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power to blacklist is inherent with the executive authorities of the State/party allotting contracts. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: “15. It follows from the above judgment in Erusian Equipment case [(1975) 1 SCC 70] that the decision of the State or its instrumentalities not to deal with certain persons or class of persons on account of the Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 9/11 undesirability of entering into the contractual relationship with such persons is called blacklisting. The State can decline to enter into a contractual relationship with a person or a class of persons for a legitimate purpose. The authority of the State to blacklist a person is a necessary concomitant to the executive power of the State to carry on the trade or the business and making of contracts for any purpose, etc. There need not be any statutory grant of such power. The only legal limitation upon the exercise of such an authority is that the State is to act fairly and rationally without in any way being arbitrary—thereby such a decision can be taken for some legitimate purpose. What is the legitimate purpose that is sought to be achieved by the State in a given case can vary depending upon various factors.” 12. Further in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “17. That apart, the power to blacklist a contractor whether the contract be for supply of material or equipment or for the execution of any other work whatsoever is in our opinion inherent in the party allotting the contract. There is no need for any such power being specifically conferred by statute or Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 10/11 reserved by contractor. That is because “blacklisting” simply signifies a business decision by which the party affected by the breach decides not to enter into any contractual relationship with the party committing the breach. Between two private parties the right to take any such decision is absolute and untrammelled by any constraints whatsoever. The freedom to contract or not to contract is unqualified in the case of private parties. But any such decision is subject to judicial review when the same is taken by the State or any of its instrumentalities. This implies that any such decision will be open to scrutiny not only on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice but also on the doctrine of proportionality. A fair hearing to the party being blacklisted thus becomes an essential precondition for a proper exercise of the power and a valid order of blacklisting made pursuant thereto. The order itself being reasonable, fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence is similarly examinable by a writ court.” 13. Considering the materials on record, and in light of the discussions made above, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2). Patna High Court CWJC No.16811 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 11/11 14. Accordingly, the present writ application stands dismissed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Anushka/- (Sudhir Singh, J) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U