- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajendra Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Bihar
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was blacklisted and his tender was rejected after assessment found that he had submitted a false experience certificate purportedly from the Power Grid Corporation. An F.I.R. was registered as Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No. 81 of 2012 dated 28.02.2012. During the course of trial arising from that F.I.R., the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner filed the present writ application seeking removal from the list of blacklisted contractors and permission to participate in future contracts. Respondents filed a supplementary counter-affidavit stating that the authorities could not take any decision because of the pendency of the civil writ application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in view of the Trial Court's acquittal, the cause for the petitioner's blacklisting has ceased and he is entitled to be removed from the list of blacklisted contractors and permitted to participate in future contracts.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Because the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner in the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR, the petitioner is entitled to be removed from the blacklist and allowed to participate in future tenders.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents stated in a supplementary counter-affidavit that the petitioner's case could not be decided and the authorities were unable to take any decision in view of the pendency of the civil writ application.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The Court noted the respondents' supplementary counter-affidavit and the factual finding that the petitioner had been blacklisted because a false experience certificate was found during tender assessment and an FIR was registered. The Court observed that the criminal proceedings arising from that FIR had resulted in an acquittal in favour of the petitioner. Given that the blacklisting arose from the now-acquitted charge, the Court concluded that the cause for blacklisting "has now become non est." The Court directed that the petitioner should approach the authority with a copy of the Court's order and the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal, and that the authority should consider the petitioner's case on its merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks of receipt or production of the order.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
The writ application was disposed of with directions that the petitioner present this order and the Trial Court's acquittal judgment to the concerned authority, which must reconsider the petitioner's blacklisting on its merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks of receipt/production. The direct effect is that the authority must re-examine the petitioner's status and there is a procedural requirement for reconsideration; the opinion does not discuss broader precedent beyond the case-specific directions.
Anjana Mishra, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. A reply to the supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner's case cannot be decided in view of the pendency of the present case. Shown off unnecessary facts, it appears that the petitioner was blacklisted and the tender in which he has applied was accordingly rejected as it was found during the course of assessment of the tender that the petitioner had filed a false experience certificate from the Power Grid Corporation. Accordingly, not only was the petitioner's tender rejected, an F.I.R. was also registered being Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No. 81 of 2012 dated 28.02.2012.
3. It further appears that during the course of trial, the said F.I.R. ended in an acquittal in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thus, prays that in view of the acquittal by the Trial Court, the petitioner is entitled to be removed from the list of blacklisted contractors and he may be permitted to participate in future contracts.
4. The supplementary counter affidavit indicates that the authorities are unable to take any decision in view of the pendency of the civil writ application.
5. Be that as it may, it appears that now cause for blacklisting which was a moot reason for issuance of order impugned in the present writ application, has now become non est.
6. Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner shall approach the authority with a copy of this order and the authority shall consider his case on its own merit and also with a copy of the judgment of the Trial Court in which the petitioner has been acquitted and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. The said consideration must be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. With the aforementioned directions, the present writ application stands disposed of.
Alert