Rohit Kumar Ojha v. The Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Patna High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CWJC-12290/2023

Disposition

Attorney(S)

Judges

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Hon'ble Mr. Justice PavanKumar Bhimappa Bajanthri

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Rohit Kumar Ojha, challenged a Notice to Show Cause dated 05.09.2022 issued by the Chief Engineer (Respondent No. 3) alleging submission of a false Experience Certificate in a tender process. This notice proposed blacklisting the petitioner for a period of 10 years under the Contractors Registration Rules, 2012 (as amended). Subsequently, an Office Order dated 05.12.2022 was issued, blacklisting the petitioner for 10 years with approval from the Managing Director of the Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash both the Show Cause Notice and the blacklisting order and restrain the respondents from enforcing the blacklisting during the pendency of the petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Notice to Show Cause dated 05.09.2022 and the consequential blacklisting order dated 05.12.2022 are valid and sustainable in law.
Whether the authority issuing the blacklisting order was competent to do so.
Whether the petitioner should be restrained from being blacklisted during the pendency of the petition.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Notice to Show Cause and the blacklisting order were issued without clear factual basis, as the documents relied upon to allege submission of false Experience Certificate were not specified.
The orders were passed by an incompetent authority.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 551	Requirement of proper procedure and authority competence in disciplinary actions including blacklisting.	Court directed the competent authority to proceed afresh with proper opportunity of hearing and specific notice in line with this precedent.
Isolators And Isolators Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2023 SCC Online SC 444	Procedural fairness and clarity in issuing show cause notices.	Referenced to emphasize the need for clear statement of imputations and opportunity to rebut before blacklisting.
State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Panda Infraproject Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 393	Fundamental purpose of show cause notices to specify precise case and nature of proposed action.	Applied to hold that the show cause notice must detail the alleged breaches to allow effective rebuttal.
Gorkha Security Services v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105	Purpose and requirements of a show cause notice in administrative actions.	Quoted to highlight the necessity of clear imputations and the nature of proposed action in the show cause notice.
Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station vs. Ashwani Kumar Dubey and Ors., (2023) 8 SCC 35	Requirement to serve copies of documents relied upon in orders and to provide opportunity to the affected party.	Court emphasized that any document relied upon must be served and opportunity given before finalizing blacklisting.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the blacklisting order dated 05.12.2022 was not a speaking order and lacked clarity regarding the factual basis for blacklisting. The show cause notice similarly failed to specify which documents allegedly submitted by the petitioner were false, thereby not enabling the petitioner to effectively respond. The petitioner also contended that the orders were passed by an incompetent authority. The Court agreed with these contentions and allowed the petition. It directed the corporation to determine the competent authority and to proceed afresh, ensuring the petitioner is given ample opportunity to be heard with reference to a specific notice detailing the grounds for blacklisting. The Court relied on precedents emphasizing the necessity of procedural fairness, clear communication of allegations, and the serving of relied-upon documents before taking adverse action such as blacklisting. The Court left all other contentions open for parties to raise before the authority during the fresh proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The Court set aside the impugned blacklisting order dated 05.12.2022 and allowed the petition.

The competent authority of the corporation is directed to reconsider the matter afresh within three months from the receipt of the order, giving the petitioner a proper and specific show cause notice and opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the cited Supreme Court precedents. The order restraining the blacklisting was not explicitly granted, but the blacklisting order was stayed by setting it aside. All other contentions remain open for adjudication by the authority. No new precedent was established; the decision enforces adherence to established procedural safeguards in administrative disciplinary actions.

Show full summary ...

Rohit Kumar Ojha v. The Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12290 of 2023

====================================================== Rohit Kumar Ojha son of Harendra Ojha, Resident of Middle Town, Nimage, P.S. Brahmpur, District-Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (A Government of Bihar Underaking), Shiksha Bhawan, Bihar Rastra Bhasha Parishad Campus, Acharya Shivpujan Sahay Path, Saidpur, Patna 800004 through its Managing Director.

2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Shiksha Bhawan, Bihar Rastra Bhasha Parishad Campus, Acharya Shivpujan Sahay Path, Saidpur, Patna 800004.

3. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Shiksha Bhawan, Bihar Rastra Bhasha Parishad Campus, Acharya Shivpujan Sahay Path, Saidpur, Patna 800004. ... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 07-10-2023

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

2/5

"(i) Quashing of the Notice to Show Cause contained in Letter No. 6727 dated 05.09.2022, by which. the Chief Engineer, (Respondent No. 3) has directed the petitioner to Show Cause as to why for the allegations of submission of false Experience Certificate in a Tender process action of blacklisting for a period of 10 years be not taken in terms of Contractors Registration Rules, 2012 (as amended) by 41" Meeting of the Board of Director vide Agenda No. 12/41;

(ii) Quashing of the consequential Office Order No. 226 dated 05.12.2022 as contained in Memo No. 9136 dated 05.12.2022 by which, the Chief Engineer, after obtaining approval from the competent authority i.e. Managing Director of the Corporation has blacklisted the Registration. of the petitioner for a period of 10 years on the allegation of submission of false Experience Certificate in terms of Contractors Registration Rules, 2012 (as amended) by 41" Meeting of the Board of Director vide Agenda No. 12/41; and

(iii) Restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the order of Blacklisting contained in Office Order No. 226 dated 05.12.2022 as contained in Memo No. 9137 dated 05.12.2022 during the pendency of the present application and /or without the leave of this Hon'ble Court;"

3/5

4. Perusal of the black listing order dated 05.12.2022 it is evident that it is not a speaking order. Further, we have perused show cause notice dated 05.09.2022 and it is also crystal clear that facts are not forthcoming as to which are the document to establish the proposition that petitioner has misled the respondent- corporation in furnishing certain alleged fake documents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the present orders have been passed by the incompetent authority.

6. On these two contentions, we allow the petition. However, in respect of competent authority is concerned, the corporation has to examine to the extent who is the competent authority. The competent authority is hereby requested to proceed afresh after giving ample opportunity of hearing of petitioner with reference to specific notice relating to blacklisting for number of years etc. in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 read with Isolators And Isolators Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 444. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated its decision in the case of State of Odisha

4/5

& Ors. vs. Panda Infraproject Ltd. reported in (2022) 4 SCC

393. The relevant para no. 23 reads as under:-

"23. As observed by this Court in Gorkha Security Services v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Gorkha Security Services v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105] , the fundamental purpose behind the serving of a show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach."

7. Recently, Apex Court in the case of Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station vs. Ashwani Kumar Dubey and Ors.

reported in (2023) 8 SCC 35, it is held that any document is relied on in an order, copy of such document is to be served and opportunity is to be provided. The above citation may be taken into consideration while taking afresh steps in the matter.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure- P/5) stands set aside. The above exercise shall be undertaken by the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. All the contentions

5/5

are left open with the respective parties to be urged before the authority.

9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J)

Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date	N/A

Rohit Kumar Ojha v. The Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Rohit Kumar Ojha v. The Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Comments