Patna High Court
M/S Vivid Offset Press vs The State Of Bihar on 13 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11244 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Vivid Offset through its partner Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, aged about
49 years (Male), S/o- Late Ram Naresh Singh, R/o- Dharara Kothi Naya Tola,
P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna- 800004.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman of Bihar State Text Book
Publishing Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna-
800001.
5. Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan,
Budh Marg, Patna- 800001 through its Managing Director.
6. The Managing Director, Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd.
Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna- 800001.
7. Officer on Special Duty (OSD), Bihar State Text Book Publishing
Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna- 800001.
8. State Education Research and Training Council through its Director,
Mahendru, Patna- 800006.
9. The Director State Education Research and Training Council, Mahendru,
Patna- 800006.
10. Bihar Education Project Council through its Project Director, Rashtra Bhasa
Parishad, Shiksha Bhawan, Saidpur, Patna-800004.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11378 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Mani Printers through its proprietor Mr. Chanchal Kumar Banerjee, aged
about 62 Years (Male), S/o Balram Banerjee, R/o- Pani Tanki, Babua Ganj,
Gulzarbagh, Patna - 800007.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
2/48
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman of Bihar State Text Book
Publishing Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna-
800001.
5. Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan,
Budh Marg, Patna- 800001 through its Managing Director.
6. The Managing Director, Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd.
Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna- 800001.
7. Officer on Special Duty (OSD), Bihar State Text Book Publishing
Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna- 800001.
8. State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) through its
Director, Mahendru, Patna (Bihar), PIN - 800006.
9. The Director State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT),
Mahendru, Patna (Bihar), PIN - 800006.
10. Bihar Education Project Council through its Project Director, Bihar
Education Project Council, Shiksha Bhawan, Rashtrabhasha Parishad
Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna- 800004.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11386 of 2025
======================================================
M/S Patna Offset , through its Partner Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, aged about 47
Years (Male), S/o-Ram Naresh Singh, R/o-Near Dharahara Kothi, Naya Tola,
P.S.-Kadamkuan, Patna-800004.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary-Cum-Chairman of Bihar State Text Book
Publishing Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna-
800001.
5. Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan,
Budh Marg, Patna-800001. through its Managing Director.
6. The Managing Director, Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd.
Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna-800001.
7. Officer on Special Duty (ODS), Bihar State Text Book Publishing
Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna-800001.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
3/48
8. State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) through its
Director, Mahendru, Patna (Bihar), PIN 800006.
9. The Director State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT),
Mahendra, Patna (Bihar), PIN 800006.
10. Bihar Education Project Council through its Project Director, Bihar
Education Project Council, Shiksha Bhawan, Rashtra Bhasa Parishad
Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna- 800004.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11437 of 2025
======================================================
M/S The Gandhi Enterprises through its proprietor, Amit Kumar Rai, Male,
aged about 48 years, son of Sri Nawal Kishore Rai, resident of Kazipur Naya
Tola, P.O Bankipore, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna, Bihar-800004.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-Cum- Chairman, Bihar State Text Book
Publishing Corporation Limited, Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Limited, Pathya Pusthak
Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna through its Managing Director.
4. The Managing Director, the Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation
Limited, Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna.
5. The Officer-on-Special Duty, the Bihar State Text Book Publishing
Corporation Limited, Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna.
6. The State Council of Educational Research and Training through its
Director, Mahendru, Patna -06.
7. The Director, State Council of Education Research and Training, Mahendru,
Patna-06.
8. The Procurement Expert State Council of Educational Research and
Training Mahendru, Patna-6.
9. The Bihar Education Project Council, through State Project Director,
Shiksha Bhawan, Rashtra Bhasha Parishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra
Nagar, Patna, Bihar- 800004.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11786 of 2025
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
4/48
M/s Capital Offset through its proprietor Mr. Sandeep Kumar, aged about 45
Years (Male), S/o- Sidhnath Rai, R/o- 79/B, Saketpuri Bazarsamiti
Bahadurpur, Rajendra Nagar, P.O. Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800007.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department. Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum- Chairman of Bihar State Text Book
Publishing Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna-
800001.
5. Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan,
Budh Marg, Patna- 800001 through its Managing Director.
6. The Managing Director, Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd.
Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna-800001.
7. Officer on Special Duty (OSD), Bihar State Text Book Publishing
Corporation Ltd. Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna-800001.
8. State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) through its
Director, Mahendru, Patna Bihar, Pin- 800006
9. The Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT),
Mahendru, Patna( Bihar), Pin- 800006
10. Bihar Education Project Council, through its Project Director, Shiksha
Bhawan, Rastrabhasha Parishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna-
800004
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12503 of 2025
======================================================
M/S Alankar Printers through its proprietor Md. Monazir Sohail, Male aged
about 55 years son of Md. Ashique Hussain, resident of Mohli Road, Karmali
Chak, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna, at present resident of Birla Mandir Road,
Aakash Ganga Press, Subzibag, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-Cum- Chairman, Bihar State Text Book
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
5/48
Publishing Corporation Limited, Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Limited, Pathya Pusthak
Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna through its Managing Director.
4. The Managing Director, the Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation
Limited, Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna.
5. The Officer-on-Special Duty, the Bihar State Text Book Publishing
Corporation Limited, Pathya Pustak Bhawan, Budh Marg, Patna.
6. The Bihar Education Project Council, through State Project Director,
Shiksha Bhawan, Rastra Bhasha Parishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar,
Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11244 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Aradhana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priti Mahato, Advocate
Mr. Ajay, GA-5
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11378 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Aradhana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priti Mahato, Advocate
Mr. Ajay, GA-5
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11386 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Aradhana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priti Mahato, Advocate
Mr. Ajay, GA-5
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11437 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
6/48
Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Bimal Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priti Mahato, Advocate
Mr. Standing Counsel (28)
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11786 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Aradhana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priti Mahato, Advocate
Mr. Ajay, GA-5
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12503 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Bimal Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priti Mahato, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11
Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 13-08-2025
The present batch of writ petitions is filed by the
petitioners challenging the order of blacklisting passed by the
respondent against respective petitioners for a period of one
year. The issue involved in these petitions is similar and,
therefore, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
7/48
requested that all these petitions be heard together and the same
be disposed of by a common judgment. Thus, at the joint request
of learned advocates, we have taken up the petitions for final
disposal, as requested.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in
C.W.J.C. No. 11437 of 2025 are stated as under:
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The Bihar State Text Book Publishing
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation')
issued E notice inviting tender (in short 'NIT') from eligible
printers for printing and supply of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (in
short 'SSA') text books for Class-I to Class-VIII Class/
Standardwise, Districtwise and Languagewise under SSA for the
academic year 2025-2026 which will be delivered to 548 Block
Resources Centres in 38 districts within the State of Bihar.
3.1. The petitioner participated in the said NIT and
was declared successful. The work order dated 14.11.2024 for
printing, binding, set making and supply of text book of Hindi,
Urdu and mixed medium under Package-52 for Class-VI in the
districts of Araria, Banka and West Champaran was issued.
Similarly, another work order for Package-58 for Class-VII in
the districts of Begusarai, Samastipur and Sheohar was also
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
8/48
issued in favour of the petitioner.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the
respondents finally approved the dummy/proof of books and
intimated the final date of approval of books on 03.12.2024.
Similarly, on 06.12.2024, respondent No. 6 had approved the
books of other printers. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that
the concerned respondent, from time to time, changed the cover
page, design and size of books and, therefore, various
correspondences took place between the parties. It is further
stated that final date of approval of books was 27.12.2024 and
as per Clause-8.1 of the tender document, printers shall have to
deliver the books to concerned Blocks within 105 days from the
date of final approval of dummy/proof and as per Clause-12(A)
(i) of the tender document, no penalty would be levied till 15
days from completion of 105 days. Thus, the printers shall have
to deliver the books at the destination within 120 days of
approval by respondent No. 6.
3.3. Respondent No. 5 issued a show cause notice
on 17.02.2025 to the concerned printers in light of Clause-8
Part-II Note (iii). It has been mentioned therein that Corporation
reserves its right to withdraw upto 50% of the contract/work
order, if the printer does not complete 50% of quantum of total
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
9/48
contract on 75th day from the date of approval of final proof
reading without issuing any prior notice. It is also the case of the
petitioner that on 05.03.2025 respondent No. 5 had directed the
petitioner to print and supply 5 extra books of Urdu/mixed
medium along with diary Hindi medium. Thereafter, respondent
No. 5 issued show cause notice dated 05.03.2025 and asked to
show cause for not delivering 50% books of total contract.
Immediately thereafter, on 18.03.2025 respondent No. 5
published a chart along with percentage of delivery of books
and convened a meeting of printers with direction to appear with
up-to-date progress report. Thereafter, once again on 25.03.2025
respondent No. 5 issued show cause notice to the petitioner
about non-supplying the books on time.
3.4. Petitioner has further stated that on
21.04.2025
, respondent No. 5 asked show cause from the
petitioner for initiation of process for blacklisting the petitioner,
to which the petitioner submitted reply on 24.04.2025.
Thereafter, on 30.04.2025 respondent No. 5 issued 2nd show
cause notice to the petitioner for blacklisting, to which the
petitioner gave reply.
3.5. The grievance of the petitioner is that
respondent No. 5 has blacklisted the petitioner vide order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
10/48
18.06.2025 for a period of one year. Petitioner has, therefore,
filed the present petition under Article-226 of the Constitution
of India in which the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the
order dated 18.06.2025, passed by respondent No. 5 by which
the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of one year.
Petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to
permit the petitioner to take part in the new tender published
online vide tender Notice No. 620 dated 05.06.2025 during
pendency of the writ petition.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
5. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary
and Mr. Bimal Kishore Singh, learned advocates appearing for
the petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 11437 of 2025 and 12503 of
2025 and Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted
by Mr. Vikas Kumar and Ms. Aradhana Kumari, learned
advocates appearing for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 11244
of 2025, 11378 of 2025, 11386 of 2025 and 11786 of 2025 and
Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.
Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Ms. Priti Mahato, Mr.
Ajay, Mr. Girijish Kumar and Mr. Akash Anand, learned
advocates appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
11/48
6. Learned senior counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri, appearing
for the petitioner would mainly contend that show cause notice
dated 25.03.2025 came to be issued by the respondent asking
the petitioner to show cause why strict action be not initiated
against the petitioner for not supplying the books within the
stipulated time. It is further submitted that petitioner submitted
reply to the said notice, copy of which is placed at page No. 222
of the compilation. It is further submitted that thereafter the
respondent issued show cause notice dated 21.04.2025, copy of
which is placed at page No. 225 of the compilation and asked
the petitioner to show cause why the penal action of blacklisting
be not initiated against it, to which the petitioner gave reply on
24.04.2025. However, it is submitted that the respondent failed
to issue show cause notice for blacklisting the petitioner and
straightaway the impugned order for blacklisting of the
petitioner for a period of one year came to be passed. Thus,
learned senior counsel would mainly submit that the
respondents have violated the principles of natural justice and
without issuing show cause notice for the purpose of
blacklisting, the impugned decision has been taken and,
therefore, only on this ground, the impugned order be set aside.
7. Learned senior advocate Mr. Giri further submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
12/48
that cyclostyle orders have been passed in the case of six
petitioners and, in fact, while passing the impugned orders, the
respondent has not considered the reply submitted by the
petitioner. There is no reference in the impugned order with
regard to the explanation tendered by the petitioner. It is also
contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and
the same is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned
order be set aside. It is further submitted that a delay in
delivering the books was caused because of the fault of the
respondent. The said aspect has been explained by the petitioner
in the reply. However, no reason is assigned by the respondent
while discarding the reply of the petitioner. Hence, the
impugned order is arbitrary which is violative of Article-14 of
the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel, therefore,
urged that this Court can exercise powers under Article-226 of
the Constitution of India and, thereby, set aside the impugned
order. Learned senior advocate has placed reliance upon the
following decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
1. Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government
(NCT of Delhi) & Ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105;
2. Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of
India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
13/48
7. Learned senior advocate Mr. Jitendra Singh,
appearing for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11244 of 2025 and
allied matters, would mainly refer various documents which are
annexed with C.W.J.C. No. 11244 of 2025. Thereafter, learned
senior advocate would mainly submit that Part-II of Clause-8 of
Section-III, i.e. General Conditions of Contract of E-tender,
provides for tentative timeline for supply of books. As per the
said Clause, tentative timeline for supply of 100% of contract
value was 105th day from the date of final approval and 15 days
grace period for 100% delivery was also provided. Thus, within
120 days from the date of final proof approval, 100% delivery is
to be made. It is further submitted that, if the maximum penalty
reaches to 10% of the remaining default contract value, then the
contract may be terminated apart from forfeiture of performance
guarantee and other penal action like debar/blacklisting may
also be initiated as per Clause-12 Part-A of the aforesaid
General Conditions. It is further submitted that, as per the terms
and conditions of tender notice, all the printers have to get
approval of final proof of books for printing by State Council of
Educational Research and Training (in short SCERT). It is
further contended by learned senior advocate that after fixing
the date of approval of final proof of books, the SCERT vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
14/48letter dated 11.12.2024 directed the Corporation to make change
in design of National Flag and print the same on all books and
school diary of Class-I to Class-VIII. The said letter was
communicated to all. Similarly, by another communication
dated 17.12.2024, Director of SCERT communicated to add five
books in the curriculum of Class-VIII. There were extra pages in
the same. Again on 24.12.2024, SCERT issued another letter to
the Corporation annexing the brief list of books from Class-I to
Class-VIII of all subjects, classwise and languagewise.
8. Learned senior advocate, therefore, submitted
that the last date of approval of proof of books falls on
22.12.2024 and, as per terms and conditions of tender
document, 105 days falls on 08.04.2025. Thereafter, there is 15
days grace period for 100% delivery, i.e. 25.04.2025 without
penalty.
9. Learned senior advocate Mr. Singh thereafter
contended that the respondent issued various letters/ show cause
notices in March, 2025, to which the petitioner submitted reply
and thereafter on 21.04.2025 show cause notice regarding
blacklisting for non-supply of 100% books was issued by the
Corporation. Petitioner gave reply on 24.04.2025 and stated that
it had supplied 89.87% books and due to non-payment it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
15/48
unable to make payment to the transporters and get delivery
challan from them. Thereafter, 2nd show cause notice regarding
blacklisting came to be issued on 29.04.2025. Petitioner
supplied reply on 02.05.2025 in which the petitioner has
explained in detail about the reasons for not supplying 100%
books within the stipulated time.
10. Learned senior advocate submits that, now, the
impugned order of blacklisting came to be passed by the
respondent by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for a
period of one year. The said order has been passed while
exercising powers under Clause-12(A) of the tender notice.
However, it is submitted that the respondent, without
ascertaining the quantum of penalty imposed on the petitioner,
passed the order of blacklisting and no penalty has been
deducted from the bill of the petitioner and final bill has not
been submitted. In fact, the petitioner has completed the entire
work.
11. Learned senior advocate assailed the impugned
order of blacklisting by mainly contending that before passing
the impugned order the respondent did not issue show cause
notice to the petitioner and, in fact, the petitioner submitted
various replies, pursuant to which various letters were issued by
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
16/48
the respondent, however, while passing the impugned order of
blacklisting, respondent has not considered the same. Thus,
there is non-application of mind on the part of the respondent
authority and the impugned order is a non-speaking order.
Learned senior advocate further submits that even if it is
presumed that there was some delay in supplying the books, the
said delay has occurred because of the fault of the respondent
for which the petitioner is not responsible and, therefore, the
respondent cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Learned
senior advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned order be
quashed.
12. In support of his submissions, learned senior
advocate has placed reliance upon the following decisions
rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
1. All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, reported in 1953
SCC OnLine Bom 90;
2. Isolators And Isolators though its proprietor
Sandhya Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra
Vidyut Vitran Company Limited And Another reported in
(2023) 8 SCC 607;
3. Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. Chief
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
17/48Executive Officer & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1682.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
13. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr.
P.K. Shahi has vehemently opposed all these petitions. Learned
Senior Advocate would mainly submit that as per Clause-17 of
the tender notice, in case of dispute or difference between the
Corporation and the bidder relating to any matter arising out of
or connected with the contract, the said issue shall be first
resolved through mutual consent. However, if the dispute still
persists/remains, then it will be entertained and finalized as per
the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that as the petitioners
have alternative remedy as per the agreement, the present
petitions may not be entertained.
14. Learned Senior Advocate thereafter referred
Clause-8 of the General Conditions of Contract. It is submitted
that delivery at the destination points should be strictly made
within 105 days from the date of final approval of dummy/proof
and the time is the essence of this contract. The time period has
to be strictly followed by the bidder at any cost. It is further
submitted that, as per Clause-8.2 Section-III, the supplier should
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
18/48
strictly adhere to the time schedule specified in Part-II of the
said contract and in the event of delay/non-supply as per the
requirement, the Corporation has the right to terminate the
contract at any time without assigning reasons thereof. Even
further penal action can be taken. Learned Senior Advocate has
also referred Clause-12(A) of the Conditions.
15. Learned Senior Advocate submits that in the
case of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11437 of 2025 the maximum
penalty had reached 12% of the remaining default contract value
because of delayed delivery of text books, as such, the petitioner
was blacklisted for a period of one year after issuing several
show cause notices. It is also contended that the Corporation has
explicitly outlined in its letter dated 06.12.2024 that the final
date for proof reading of Class-I to Class-V is 02.12.2024 and
for Class-VI to Class-VIII it is 03.12.2024. Consequently, the
deadline for 100% delivery of books without penalty is
determined to be 01.04.2025 or 02.04.2025 respectively. It is
also contended that, so far as the said petitioner is concerned,
the petitioner was running much behind the schedule and had
supplied only 54.76% of text books till 02.04.2025 and
thereafter the petitioner had supplied 69.91% of books till
26.04.2025. The impugned decision has been taken by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
19/48
respondent after issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner.
Learned Senior Advocate has referred various important show
cause notices issued by the respondent to the petitioner, copy of
which is placed on record with the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent. Learned Senior Advocate has also referred the chart
annexed with the counter affidavit in support of his submission
that the petitioner did not deliver 100% of books within the
stipulated time.
16. Learned Senior Advocate, at this stage, referred
the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in C.W.J.C. No.
11244 of 2025 and, more particularly para-40 thereof. It is
submitted that the petitioner had already crossed the timeline of
01.04.2025 and 02.04.2025 and it is evident from the progress
report dated 02.04.2025 that petitioner had delivered only
44.37% of books allotted to it. Even as on 26.04.2025, petitioner
had supplied only 52.73% of books. Thus, the petitioner had
committed a default of 17% of the remaining default contract
value. Learned Senior Advocate has also referred the chart
produced at Annexures-R/1 to R/3 of the counter affidavit filed
in the said matter in support of his submission. Learned Senior
Advocate, at the same time, referred various show cause notices
issued by the respondent to the petitioner, including the show
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
20/48
cause notice for taking action of blacklisting issued by the
respondent to the petitioner.
17. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that
the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by the
learned senior advocates for the petitioners would not render
any assistance to them. Learned Senior Advocate would submit
that, in contract matters, the scope of judicial review is very
limited. In the present case, the respondent has issued show
cause notice and thereafter, looking to the urgency of the supply
of text books pursuant to the relevant Clause of the tender
condition because of the non-supply of the books within the
stipulated time, when the action has been taken by the
respondent authority, this Court may not sit in appeal over the
said decision and there is no arbitrariness on the part of the
respondent while passing the impugned orders of blacklisting of
all the petitioners. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged
that all these petitions be dismissed.
Discussions:
18. Having heard learned advocates appearing for
the parties and having gone through the materials placed on
record, it would emerge that the respondent Corporation issued
NIT for printing and supply of SSA text books for Class-I to
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
21/48
Class-VIII Class/standardwise, Districtwise, Languagewise for
the academic year 2025-2026. It would further emerge that all
the petitioners participated pursuant to the said NIT and were
declared successful. The other printers, whose details are
mentioned in the chart annexed with the counter affidavit of the
respondents, were also declared successful in the said process
for different districts and for different classes. From the
submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the
parties, mainly it would emerge that it is the case of the
petitioners that because of the change in design/ various reasons
and because of the modifications and various instructions issued
by the respondent, from time to time, there was some delay
caused in supplying the books. It is also the case of the
petitioners that the books were supplied within the grace period,
i.e. upto 120 days. The main contention of the petitioners is that
the impugned orders of blacklisting were passed by the
respondents in cases of the respective petitioner without issuing
the show cause notice. In fact, show cause notice has been
issued by the respondent to the petitioners in which the
petitioners were asked to show cause why proceedings with
regard to blacklisting be not initiated. However, thereafter no
proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
22/48
straightaway the impugned orders have been passed. It is also
the case of the petitioners that the impugned orders are non-
speaking orders and while passing the same there is non-
application of mind on the part of the respondent authority and,
thus, there is arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Thus,
the respondent has violated Article-14 of the Constitution of
India and, therefore, this Court is having power to entertain the
present petitions.
19. With a view to appreciate the aforesaid
contentions and factual aspects, we have gone through the entire
record. From the record, it transpires that as per Section- II.B
1.4 of NIT dated 28.08.2024, the contract was to be awarded
from the date of issuance of the work order and the text books
were required to reach the destination points concerned (H.Qs./
B.R.Cs. in the State) within 01.02.2025 or 105 days from the
date of final approval of dummy/proof, whichever comes first.
Further, Section-II, Clause-11 of NIT states that the Corporation
has the right to vary quantities at the time of award of contract
of SSA. Further, Clause-8 of Section-III of General Condition of
Contract contained in NIT provides that delivery at the
destination points should be strictly made within 01.02.2025 or
105 days from the date of final approval of dummy/proof,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
23/48
whichever comes first and 15 days additional grace period for
100% delivery was provided in the scheduled timeline. At this
stage, it is important to note that Clause-8.2 specifically
provides that time is the essence of this contract and that the
time period has to be strictly followed by the bidder at any cost.
Further, no negligence should be shown on the ground of delay
at any cost.
20. Clause-12 of Section-III of General Condition
of Contract further provides for penalty for delay in delivery of
text books. It is specifically provided that if the maximum
penalty reaches to 10% of the remaining default contract value,
then the contract may be terminated apart from forfeiture of
performance guarantee and other penal actions like
debar/blacklisting may be initiated.
21. Now, it is the specific case of the respondents
in the counter affidavit that deadline for 100% delivery of books
is determined to be 01.04.2025 and 02.04.2025 for Class-I to
Class-V and for Class-VI to Class-VIII respectively. It is the
specific case of the respondents that, so far the petitioner of
C.W.J.C. No. 11437 of 2025 is concerned, it had supplied only
54.76% of text books till 02.04.2025 and thereafter the
petitioner had supplied 69.91% of books till 26.04.2025. Thus,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
24/48
the said petitioner had committed default of the 12% of the
default contract value. Similarly, so far the petitioner of
C.W.J.C. No. 11244 of 2025 is concerned, it is the specific case
of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the said petitioner
had delivered only 44.37% of books as on 02.04.2025 and
52.73% of books till 26.04.2025. We have also perused the
different charts placed on record by the respondents along with
the counter affidavit. Thus, the said petitioner had committed
default of 17% of default contract value.
22. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspects,
we have also once again referred various show cause notices
issued by the respondents to the respective petitioners and the
reply submitted by the respective petitioners. It has been mainly
contended by learned advocates that without issuing show cause
notice for taking action of blacklisting straightaway order of
blacklisting has been passed.
23. We are of the view that the aforesaid contention
is misconceived. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 11437 of 2025
has placed on record the show cause notice dated 30th of April,
2025 as Annexure-P/18. If the said notice is carefully examined,
it is revealed that the respondent has specifically asked the
petitioner to show cause why the said petitioner be not
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
25/48
blacklisted. Similarly, in the case of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.
11244 of 2025, similar type of notice dated 30 th of April, 2025
came to be issued to the said petitioner, copy of which is placed
at page Nos. 276 and 277 of the compilation. Thus, we are of
the view that the aforesaid contention of the petitioners that no
show cause notice with regard to blacklisting was issued by the
respondents cannot be accepted.
24. We have also gone through the impugned
orders passed by the respondents. If the impugned orders are
carefully examined, it is revealed that the respondent concerned
has specifically mentioned that repeated correspondences took
place between the parties and despite repeated requests made to
the concerned petitioners, they have failed to supply the books
within the stipulated time and, therefore, while exercising
powers under Clause-12A of the General Conditions of Tender,
the action of blacklisting has been taken against the respective
petitioners for a period of one year.
24.1. We are of the view that, as observed
hereinabove, in the present case, the NIT was issued for supply
of text books for Class-I to Class-VIII before the academic term
starts and, therefore, Clause-8 specifically provides that time is
the essence of the contract and delivery at the destination points
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
26/48
should be strictly made within the stipulated time. Otherwise,
strict penal action can be taken against the concerned bidder.
Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present
cases, when the respondent authority has taken the decision to
blacklist the petitioners herein for a period of one year, we are
of the view that the said decision cannot be termed as ‘arbitrary’
merely because the respondent has not stated in detail the
reasons for passing such orders. It is relevant to note that from
the chart annexed by the respondents with the counter affidavit,
it transpires that similar type of work was awarded to 57 printers
out of which the action has been taken only against 6 petitioners
as they did not supply the books within the stipulated time. It
further transpires from the said chart that all the other printers
have supplied 100% or more than 86% books within the
stipulated time and, therefore also, it is not open for the
respective petitioners to contend that because of certain default
on the part of the respondents the petitioners could not supply
the books within the stipulated time.
25. At this stage, we would like to refer the
decisions upon which reliance has been placed by the learned
advocates appearing for the parties.
26. In the case of Gorkha Security Services
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
27/48
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos.
27, 31 and 32 as under:-
27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was
incumbent on the part of the Department to state in
the show-cause notice that the competent authority
intended to impose such a penalty of blacklisting,
so as to provide adequate and meaningful
opportunity to the appellant to show cause against
the same. However, we may also add that even if it
is not mentioned specifically but from the reading
of the show-cause notice, it can be clearly inferred
that such an action was proposed, that would fulfil
this requirement. In the present case, however,
reading of the show-cause notice does not suggest
that noticee could find out that such an action could
also be taken. We say so for the reasons that are
recorded hereinafter.
31. When it comes to the action of blacklisting
which is termed as “civil death” it would be
difficult to accept the proposition that without even
putting the noticee to such a contemplated action
and giving him a chance to show cause as to why
such an action be not taken, final order can be
passed blacklisting such a person only on the
premise that this is one of the actions so stated in
the provisions of NIT.
The “prejudice” argument
32. It was sought to be argued by Mr Maninder
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
28/48
Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondent, that even if it is
accepted that the show-cause notice should have
contained the proposed action of blacklisting, no
prejudice was caused to the appellant inasmuch as
all necessary details mentioning defaults/prejudices
committed by the appellant were given in the
show-cause notice and the appellant had even given
its reply thereto. According to him, even if the
action of blacklisting was not proposed in the
show-cause notice, the reply of the appellant would
have remained the same. On this premise, the
learned Additional Solicitor General has argued
that there is no prejudice caused to the appellant by
non-mentioning of the proposed action of
blacklisting. He argued that unless the appellant
was able to show that non-mentioning of
blacklisting as the proposed penalty has caused
prejudice and has resulted in miscarriage of justice,
the impugned action cannot be nullified. For this
proposition he referred to the judgment of this
Court in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash
Chandra Ahuja [(2008) 9 SCC 31 : (2008) 2 SCC
(L&S) 789] : (SCC pp. 38, 40-41 & 44, paras 21,
31, 36 & 44)
“21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar
[ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 :
1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] it
is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural
justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
29/48officer’s report to the delinquent if such inquiry
officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It
is also clear that non-supply of report of the
inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice.
But it is equally clear that failure to supply a
report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent
employee would not ipso facto result in the
proceedings being declared null and void and
the order of punishment non est and ineffective.
It is for the delinquent employee to plead and
prove that non-supply of such report had caused
prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice.
If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point,
the order of punishment cannot automatically be
set aside.
***
31. At the same time, however, effect of
violation of the rule of audi alteram partem has
to be considered. Even if hearing is not afforded
to the person who is sought to be affected or
penalised, can it not be argued that ‘notice
would have served no purpose’ or ‘hearing could
not have made difference’ or ‘the person could
not have offered any defence whatsoever’. In
this connection, it is interesting to note that
under the English law, it was held few years
before that non-compliance with principles of
natural justice would make the order null and
void and no further inquiry was necessary.
***
36. The recent trend, however, is of ‘prejudice’.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
30/48
Even in those cases where procedural
requirements have not been complied with, the
action has not been held ipso facto illegal,
unlawful or void unless it is shown that non-
observance had prejudicially affected the
applicant.
***
44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that
though supply of report of the inquiry officer is
part and parcel of natural justice and must be
furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to
do so would not automatically result in quashing
or setting aside of the order or the order being
declared null and void. For that, the delinquent
employee has to show ‘prejudice’. Unless he is
able to show that non-supply of report of the
inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or
miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment
cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether
prejudice had been caused to the delinquent
employee depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and no rule of
universal application can be laid down.”
27. In the case of Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 25 to 28
and 40 as under:-
25. Expressions like “a reasonable opportunity of
making objection” or “a reasonable opportunity of
defence” have come up for consideration before
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
31/48this Court in the context of several statutes. A
Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem Chand v.
Union of India [AIR 1958 SC 300] , of course in
the context of service jurisprudence, reiterated
certain principles which are applicable in the
present case also.
26. S.R. Das, C.J. speaking for the unanimous
Constitution Bench in Khem Chand [AIR 1958 SC
300] held that the concept of “reasonable
opportunity” includes various safeguards and one
of them, in the words of the learned Chief Justice,
is : (AIR p. 307, para 19)
“(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and
establish his innocence, which he can only
do if he is told what the charges levelled
against him are and the allegations on which
such charges are based;”
27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show
cause, the person proceeded against must be told
the charges against him so that he can take his
defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that
at that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet,
cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront
him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If
that is done, as has been done in this instant case,
the entire proceeding initiated by the show-cause
notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the
subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
32/48
28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the
goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the
functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to
inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected
to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with
utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be
manifested by the language in which charges are
couched and conveyed to the person proceeded
against.
40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain
principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which
are set out below : (SCC pp. 510-12)“(a) In India the judicial trend has always been
to record reasons, even in administrative
decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record
reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant
to serve the wider principle of justice that justice
must not only be done it must also appear to be
done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
33/48power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a decision-making
process as observing principles of natural justice
by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by
administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial
review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries
committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned decisions
based on relevant facts. This is virtually the
lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying
the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these
days can be as different as the judges and
authorities who deliver them. All these decisions
serve one common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors
have been objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the
justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
candid enough about his/her decision-making
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
34/48process then it is impossible to know whether
the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be
cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons
or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated
with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the
sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial
powers. Transparency in decision-making not
only makes the judges and decision-makers less
prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence
of Judicial Candor(1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev.
731-37.)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in
decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.
See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] ,
EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University
of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 : 2001 ICR 847
(CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6
of the European Convention of Human Rights
which requires, ‘adequate and intelligent reasons
must be given for judicial decisions’.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments
play a vital role in setting up precedents for the
future. Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
35/48
of the essence and is virtually a part of ‘due
process’.”
28. In the case of Isolators & Isolators (supra) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 34, 35 and 40
as under:-
34. Having given thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions and having examined the record,
we are clearly of the view that the impugned order
[Isolators & Isolators v. M.P. Madhya Kshetra
Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine MP
6054] as passed by the High Court in practically
denying the principal relief claimed by the
appellant cannot be approved and the writ petition
filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed to the
extent of annulling the effect of debarment and
quashing the imposition of penalty.
35. As regards the principles of law applicable to
the case, we need not elaborate on various
decisions cited at the Bar. Suffice it would be to
take note of the decision in UMC Technologies
[UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of
India, (2021) 2 SCC 551] wherein, the substance of
the other relevant decisions has also been duly
noticed by this Court while explaining the
principles governing such actions of
debarment/blacklisting. Therein, this Court, inter
alia, underscored the requirement of specific show-
cause notice and referred to the settled principles in
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
36/48
the following terms : (SCC pp. 558-61, paras 13-14
& 16-19)
“13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the
first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a
person against whom any action is sought to be
taken or whose right or interests are being
affected should be given a reasonable
opportunity to defend himself. The basic
principle of natural justice is that before
adjudication starts, the authority concerned
should give to the affected party a notice of the
case against him so that he can defend himself.
Such notice should be adequate and the grounds
necessitating action and the penalty/action
proposed should be mentioned specifically and
unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the
bounds of notice is impermissible and without
jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir
Ahmad v. Custodian (Evacuee Property) [Nasir
Ahmad v. Custodian (Evacuee Property), (1980)
3 SCC 1] has held that it is essential for the
notice to specify the particular grounds on the
basis of which an action is proposed to be taken
so as to enable the noticee to answer the case
against him. If these conditions are not satisfied,
the person cannot be said to have been granted
any reasonable opportunity of being heard.
14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of
a person or an entity by the State or a State
Corporation, the requirement of a valid,
particularised and unambiguous show-cause
notice is particularly crucial due to the severe
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
37/48
consequences of blacklisting and the
stigmatisation that accrues to the person/entity
being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to
describe the concept of blacklisting and the
graveness of the consequences occasioned by it.
Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person
or an entity the privileged opportunity of
entering into government contracts. This
privilege arises because it is the State who is the
counterparty in government contracts and as
such, every eligible person is to be afforded an
equal opportunity to participate in such
contracts, without arbitrariness and
discrimination. Not only does blacklisting take
away this privilege, it also tarnishes the
blacklisted person’s reputation and brings the
person’s character into question. Blacklisting
also has long-lasting civil consequences for the
future business prospects of the blacklisted
person.
***
16. The severity of the effects of blacklisting and
the resultant need for strict observance of the
principles of natural justice before passing an
order of blacklisting were highlighted by this
Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v.
State of W.B. [Erusian Equipment & Chemicals
Ltd. v. State of W.B., (1975) 1 SCC 70] in the
following terms : (SCC pp. 74-75, paras 12, 15
& 20)
’12. … The order of blacklisting has the effect
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
38/48
of depriving a person of equality of opportunity
in the matter of public contract. A person who is
on the approved list is unable to enter into
advantageous relations with the Government
because of the order of blacklisting. A person
who has been dealing with the Government in
the matter of sale and purchase of materials has
a legitimate interest or expectation. When the
State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be
supported by legality.
***
15. … The blacklisting order involves civil
consequences. It casts a slur. It creates a barrier
between the persons blacklisted and the
Government in the matter of transactions. The
blacklists are “instruments of coercion”.
***
20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a
person from the privilege and advantage of
entering into lawful relationship with the
Government for purposes of gains. The fact that
a disability is created by the order of blacklisting
indicates that the relevant authority is to have an
objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play
require that the person concerned should be
given an opportunity to represent his case before
he is put on the blacklist.’
17. Similarly, this Court in Raghunath Thakur v.
State of Bihar [Raghunath Thakur v. State of
Bihar, (1989) 1 SCC 229] struck down an order
of blacklisting for future contracts on the ground
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
39/48
of non-observance of the principles of natural
justice. The relevant extract of the judgment in
that case is as follows : (SCC p. 230, para 4)
‘4. … [I]t is an implied principle of the rule of
law that any order having civil consequences
should be passed only after following the
principles of natural justice. It has to be realised
that blacklisting any person in respect of
business ventures has civil consequence for the
future business of the person concerned in any
event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an
elementary principle of natural justice that
parties affected by any order should have right
of being heard and making representations
against the order.’
18. This Court in Gorkha Security Services v.
State (NCT of Delhi) [Gorkha Security Services
v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105] has
described blacklisting as being equivalent to the
civil death of a person because blacklisting is
stigmatic in nature and debars a person from
participating in government tenders thereby
precluding him from the award of government
contracts. It has been held thus : (SCC p. 115,
para 16)
’16. It is a common case of the parties that the
blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause
notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded
and does not even demand much amplification.
The necessity of compliance with the principles
of natural justice by giving the opportunity to
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
40/48
the person against whom action of blacklisting is
sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale
behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or
evil consequences follow. It is described as
“civil death” of a person who is foisted with the
order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic
in nature and debars such a person from
participating in government tenders which
means precluding him from the award of
government contracts.’
19. In light of the above decisions, it is clear that
a prior show-cause notice granting a reasonable
opportunity of being heard is an essential
element of all administrative decision-making
and particularly so in decisions pertaining to
blacklisting which entail grave consequences for
the entity being blacklisted. In these cases,
furnishing of a valid show-cause notice is
critical and a failure to do so would be fatal to
any order of blacklisting pursuant thereto.”
40. Even the order debarring the appellant for a
period of 3 years for default in making the requisite
supplies carries its own shortcomings. As noticed,
the appellant had indeed made substantial supplies
against the purchase orders in question. Fact of the
matter further remains that on 18-9-2019,
Respondent 2 dealing with the procurement
specifically informed the appellant that the supply
under the purchase order in question is to be
deferred. It has rightly been argued on behalf of the
appellant that after such an order of deferment,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
41/48
there had not been any other communication or
even indication from the respondents which would
have informed the appellant to resume supplies. We
have reproduced hereinabove all the relevant
passages in the additional written submissions on
behalf of the respondents, made in an effort to meet
with the arguments concerning the effect and
impact of the said communication dated 18-9-2019.
It is at once apparent that the respondents have not
been able to rebut the contention urged in this
regard on behalf of the appellant. The written
submissions on behalf of the respondents do not
answer the root question in the matter as to how the
appellant could have been made solely responsible
for delay or default in supply after the
communication dated 18-9-2019 when the
respondents themselves informed the appellant that
taking of balance delivery was being deferred (until
further instructions). In the length and breadth of
the arguments on behalf of the respondents, it has
nowhere been pointed out if such “further
instructions” were ever issued to the appellant
before issuance of the cancellation orders dated 19-
11-2019 and 21-11-2019 as also before issuance of
show-cause notice dated 26-11-2019. That being
the position, we are clearly of the view that the
debarment order had been issued against the
appellant without due regard to the undeniable
factual situation where the entire blame could not
have been foisted upon or shifted towards the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
42/48
appellant. Hence, the impugned order dated 30-7-
2020 debarring the appellant is also required to be
set aside.
29. In the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour
(supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos.
65, 69 and 127 as under:-
65. The meaning and true import of arbitrariness is
more easily visualized than precisely stated or
defined. The question, whether an impugned action
is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on
the facts and in the circumstances of a given case.
An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is
any discernible principle emerging from the
impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of
reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for
doing an act and there is no impediment in
following that procedure, the performance of the
act otherwise and in a manner which does not
disclose any discernible principle which is
reasonable, may itself attract the vice of
arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed
by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by
reason, is arbitrary. Rule of law contemplates
governance by laws and not by humour, whims or
caprices of the men to whom the governance is
entrusted for the time being. It is trite that be you
ever so high, the laws are above you.
69. To ascertain whether an act is arbitrary or not,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
43/48
the court must carefully attend to the facts and the
circumstances of the case. It should find out
whether the impugned decision is based on any
principle. If not, it may unerringly point to
arbitrariness. If the act betrays caprice or the mere
exhibition of the whim of the authority it would
sufficiently bear the insignia of arbitrariness. In this
regard supporting an order with a rationale which
in the circumstances is found to be reasonable will
go a long way to repel a challenge to State action.
No doubt the reasons need not in every case be part
of the order as such. If there is absence of good
faith and the action is actuated with an oblique
motive, it could be characterised as being arbitrary.
A total non-application of mind without due regard
to the rights of the parties and public interest may
be a clear indicator of arbitrary action.
127. The sanctity of contracts is a fundamental
principle that underpins the stability and
predictability of legal and commercial
relationships. When public authorities enter into
contracts, they create legitimate expectations that
the State will honour its obligations. Arbitrary or
unreasonable terminations undermine these
expectations and erode the trust of private players
from the public procurement processes and tenders.
Once a contract is entered, there is a legitimate
expectation, that the obligations arising from the
contract will be honoured and that the rights arising
from it will not be arbitrarily divested except for a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
44/48
breach or non-compliance of the terms agreed
thereunder. In this regard we may make a reference
to the decision of this Court in Sivanandan C.T. v.
High Court of Kerala reported in (2024) 3 SCC
799 wherein it was held that a promise made by a
public authority will give rise to a legitimate
expectation that it will adhere to its assurances. The
relevant portion reads as under:–
“18. The basis of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation in public law is founded on the
principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in
Government dealings with individuals. It
recognises that a public authority’s promise or
past conduct will give rise to a legitimate
expectation. The doctrine is premised on the
notion that public authorities, while performing
their public duties, ought to honour their
promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an
expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law,
custom, or established procedurexxx xxx xxx
45. The underlying basis for the application
of the doctrine of legitimate expectation has
expanded and evolved to include the principles
of good administration. Since citizens repose
their trust in the State, the actions and policies
of the State give rise to legitimate expectations
that the State will adhere to its assurance or
past practice by acting in a consistent,
transparent, and predictable manner. The
principles of good administration require that
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
45/48the decisions of public authorities must
withstand the test of consistency, transparency,
and predictability to avoid being regarded as
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. In the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate
Limited (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in
para No. 9 as under:-
9. But the most surprising contention is put forward
by the Department that because their own officer
failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is
deprived of his right which the law has given to
him under sub-section (2) of S. 24. In other words,
the Department wants to benefit from and wants to
take advantage of its own default. It is an
elementary principle of law that no person–we
take it that the Income-tax Department is included
in that definition–can put forward his own default
in defence to a right asserted by the other party. A
person cannot say that the party claiming the right
is deprived of that right because “I have committed
a default and the right is lost because of that
default.”
31. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it can be said that
it is the duty of the Department to state in the show cause notice
that the competent authority intended to impose penalty of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
46/48
blacklisting so as to provide adequate opportunity to the person
against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken to show
cause against the same. Further, in administrative decisions also,
the reasons are required to be recorded and a quasi judicial
authority must record reasons in support of its decision. Further,
the blacklisting order involves civil consequences. It casts a slur
and creates barrier between the person blacklisted and the
Government in the matter of transactions. Further, the question
whether an impugned action is arbitrary or not is ultimately to
be answered in the facts and circumstances of a given case. The
Court should find out whether impugned order is based on any
principle. If not, it may unerringly point to arbitrariness.
32. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions and the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
cases, if the facts and circumstances of the present cases are
carefully examined, it can be said that, in the present cases, the
respondent authorities, from time to time, issued various letters
and thereafter show cause notices to the respective petitioners
and asked them to show cause why appropriate action be not
taken against them. In fact, the show cause notice for initiation
of proceedings of blacklisting was also issued in the case of
each of the petitioners and thereafter the show cause notice
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
47/48
asking the respective petitioner why the petitioner be not
blacklisted. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondents have
passed the impugned orders without issuing the show cause
notice. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the present
cases, the petitioners have to supply the books for Class-I to
Class-VIII within the stipulated time and before the academic
year starts and, therefore, time is the essence of contract.
Further, as observed hereinabove, out of 57 printers, except the
present petitioners, all the other printers have supplied 100% or
more than 86% books within the stipulated time. Thus, looking
to the facts and circumstances of the present cases, it can be said
that exercise of powers under Clause-12(A) of the General
Condition of Tender by the respondent cannot be termed as
‘arbitrary’. From the impugned orders, it cannot be said that
there is non-application of mind on the part of the respondent
authorities while passing the said orders. Further, it is well
settled that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the order passed
by the respondent authority in contract matters and the scope of
judicial review in such type of cases is very limited. We are of
the view that the decisions upon which reliance has been placed
by the learned advocates for the petitioners would not render
any assistance to them in the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CWJC No.11244 of 2025 dt.13-08-2025
48/48
of the case.
Conclusion
33. In view of the discussions made above, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the
respondent authorities, while exercising powers under Article-
226 of the Constitution of India.
34. Accordingly, all these writ petitions stand
dismissed.
35. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
Partha Sarthy, J : I agree.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 08.08.2025 Uploading Date 14.08.2025 Transmission Date N/A