The Patna High Court dismissed a challenge against a blacklisting notice, emphasizing that filing the writ at a premature stage, without even having availed the remedy of submitting a reply to the show cause notice, is 'wholly misconceived'.

The Bench clarified that the power of an authority to "decide" a matter inherently includes the power to "initiate" it through a show cause notice.

The Court reiterated that interference at the notice stage is an exception, reserved only for cases involving patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or clear pre-determination.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh observed, “This Court finds that the writ petition has been filed at a premature stage, without the petitioner having availed the opportunity of submitting a reply to the show cause notice...The plea of lack of jurisdiction raised on behalf of the petitioner is found to be wholly misconceived. It is not in dispute that under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, the Engineer-in-Chief is the designated Registering Authority and is vested with the power to pass an order of blacklisting against a contractor. The Rules further mandate that before any such adverse action is taken, the contractor must be afforded an opportunity to show cause. In this backdrop, it necessarily follows that the authority which is competent to pass an order of blacklisting is equally competent to initiate the process leading thereto.”

Advocate Prabhat Ranjan appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Amish Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner filed this writ application to challenge a show cause notice and certain government orders related to a blacklisting process.

In August 2025, the Road Construction Department issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the widening and strengthening of the Ilmas Nagar–Balipur Dumra Road. Only two bidders participated in this process.

Initially, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee accepted the petitioner’s bid and rejected the other bidder. After the financial bids were opened, the petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder (L-1). However, the Department later ordered a re-evaluation of the bids. During this review, the Committee found that the petitioner had provided incorrect details regarding its current work commitments. Based on this finding, the petitioner’s bid was declared "non-responsive," and the Department decided to call for a new tender.

While a separate legal challenge to that decision was already pending in court, the authorities issued the impugned show cause notice on March 17, 2026, officially proposing to blacklist the petitioner.

Contention of the Parties

The Petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice was illegal, unfair, and lacked proper authority. He stated that the notice was "vague," meaning it did not give enough specific details or evidence for the petitioner to defend itself. The Petitioner argued that the Engineer-in-Chief had already decided to punish the Petitioner because he was part of the earlier committee that rejected the petitioner's bid on February 26, 2026. Because the officer had already formed an opinion, the petitioner argued that the "opportunity to be heard" was fake and just a formality.

On the other hand, the lawyer for the State (the respondents) argued that the notice was perfectly legal. He stated it was issued by the proper authority under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007. He argued that the notice clearly explained the allegations and gave the petitioner a fair chance to reply, but the petitioner chose to come to court instead of answering the notice.

Regarding the allegation of bias, the State argued it was wrong. It was explained that the decision to reject the bid was made by a "multi-member committee," not just one person. Therefore, the Engineer-in-Chief was simply performing his official duty when he issued the notice.

Observations of the Court

The Court raised the issue of whether the impugned Show Cause Notice was so vague, biased, or legally flawed that the Court should interfere and stop the process immediately under Article 226, even before the Department had passed a final order.

The Court said, “Thus, when the statute vests the power of blacklisting in the Engineer-in-Chief and requires a prior opportunity of hearing, the issuance of the show cause notice by the said authority is not only within jurisdiction but is a statutorily mandated procedural step. The contention of the petitioner that the authority lacks jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice, therefore, overlooks the settled principle that the power to decide necessarily carries with it the power to initiate proceedings. The impugned notice, being issued by the competent authority in furtherance of such statutory duty, cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.”

The Court found that the argument regarding "lack of jurisdiction" was wrong. Under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, the Engineer-in-Chief is the official "Registering Authority" who has the power to blacklist contractors. The Court held that since he has the power to pass the final order, he naturally has the power to start the process by issuing a notice.

It noted that High Courts should generally not stop a case at the "Show Cause" stage. The petitioner must first reply to the department and explain their side. A writ petition is only allowed if the notice is completely illegal or issued by someone with no authority, which was not the case here.

The Court disagreed that the notice lacked details. It stated that the notice clearly told the petitioner that the allegation was about "furnishing incorrect information" regarding work commitments. At this early stage, the department does not need to provide a detailed judgment; it only needs to inform the party of the charges.

The Court rejected the claim that the Engineer-in-Chief was biased. It held that simply because the officer was part of an earlier committee did not mean he had already made up his mind. The Court clarified that the decision was made by a multi-member committee, not one individual.

The Court said that the decision in J. Sri Nisha vs. The Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. assumed significance, wherein it has been held that although a show cause notice can be challenged in writ jurisdiction, such interference is permissible only in exceptional cases, namely where the notice is without jurisdiction, reflects a pre-determined mind, or violates principles of natural justice. In the present case, the Court said that none of these contingencies was attracted.

"The 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", the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Show Cause Notice was legal and did not require any interference by the Court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Raj Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4759 of 2026]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Prabhat Ranjan

Respondent: Advocate Amish Kumar

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: