Disposed¶42

V. B. Buildcom v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Feb 2026CWJC/1438/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor blacklisting; forged documents in technical bid; PMGSY-III e-Tender I.D. No. 140344 (RCC Bridge, Works Division, Araria); Clause 4.4B(b)(ii) SBD (PMGSY-III); Rule 11(a)(ix) Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules (RWD) 2007; two-year blacklist Memo No. 10706 dated 09.10.2025; appeal dismissed 05.12.2025, Memo No. 12464 dated 11.12.2025; writ disposed with liberty to seek review of quantum of punishment before Additional Chief Secretary, RWD; Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) raised in petitioner's prayer; no precedent engaged.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with directions: petitioner may file a representation before respondent no. 2 (Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department) limited to the quantum of punishment; respondent no. 2 to consider it, hear all stakeholders, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

V. B. Buildcom Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the documents submitted by the petitioner alongwith the technical bid were in violation of Rule 11(a)(ix) of the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules (Rural Works Department), 2007 (submission of false or forged security/documents).

¶35

Court's answer

Upon consideration of the materials on record, the Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the blacklisting order.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner will be at liberty to make a representation before respondent no. 2, namely the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, limited to the issue of quantum of punishment.

¶39

Key takeaways

In the event such a representation is filed, respondent no. 2 (Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department) shall consider the same, afford an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil writ petition disposed of by the Patna High Court (oral order dated 09-02-2026, per Sudhir Singh, J; Rajesh Kumar Verma, J on the Bench). V. B. Buildcom, a contractor (Reg. No. 1200261), challenged its blacklisting for two years ordered by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department (Letter Memo No. 10706 dated 09.10.2025) after forged documents were allegedly filed with a technical bid in e-Tender (I.D. No. 140344) for an RCC Bridge at Araria under PMGSY-III, and the dismissal of its appeal dated 05.12.2025 (communicated vide Memo No. 12464 dated 11.12.2025) by the Secretary, Rural Works Department; the case turned on Rule 11(a)(ix) of the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules (RWD), 2007. Finding no infirmity in the Appellate Authority's order, the Court left the petitioner at liberty to make a representation before respondent no. 2 (Additional Chief Secretary, RWD) solely on the quantum of punishment, to be considered after affording hearing to all stakeholders, with an appropriate order to follow in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1438 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

V. B. Buildcom through its authorized representative namely Diwakar Kumar (Reg. No.1200261), Male, aged about 43 years, S/o- Deo Narayan Bhagat, Resident of Bhagat Tola, Ward No.- 28, P.S. Araria, District Araria Pin Code854311.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, the Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Secretary, Rural Works Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Engineer -in- Chief, Rural Works Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Purnea.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department the Work Circle, Kishanganj.

¶12

... ... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the Respondents : M/S Nivedita Chaudhary and Prateek Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A. 5

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

¶17

2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶18

counsel for the respondents.

¶19

The following reliefs have been sought for by the petitioner in the present writ application:

¶20

“1(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order communicated vide Letter bearing Memo

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1438 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026 2/5

¶22

No. 10706 dated 09.10.2025 issued by the respondent Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner bearing Registration No. 1200261 has been blacklisted for a period of 02(two) years unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal manner, as well as the order passed on 05.12.2025 passed by the Secretary, Rural Works Department in appeal filed by the petitioner communicated vide Memo No. 12464 dated 11.12.2025.

¶23

(b) For further restraining the respondents from depriving the petitioner or in any manner, affecting the participation of the petitioner in any of the tenders invited by any Government Department of the State of Bihar and any of the Corporation or Company etc., in light of the impugned office, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶24

(c) For holding and a declaration that the impugned office order blacklisting the petitioner for a period of 02 (two) years from the date of its issuance suffers from the error of violation of principles of natural justice for being non-speaking, disproportionate and mechanical and as such fit to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’b le Court.

¶25

(d) For further holding and a declaration

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.1438 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026 3/5

¶27

that the impugned office order having not dealt with the issues of facts as well as law raised by the petitioner on the one hand and having drastic consequences of suspending the whole business activity of the petitioner as a contractor on the other hand for a period of 02 (two) years is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner for freedom of trade and profession in terms of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

¶28

(e) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

(f) Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent nos. 3 sand 4 do not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.?

¶30

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

that the petitioner had participated in an e-Tender (I.D. No. 140344) for construction of RCC Bridge under Works Division, Araria under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana-III. As required, the petitioner submitted details of two key personnels, namely, Er. Arun Kumar and Er. Ankur Kumar. During scrutiny, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee found violation of Clause 4.4B(b)(ii) of SBD (PMGSY-III), whereupon the Department issued a show cause dated 25.08.2025. The

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.1438 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026 4/5

¶33

petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause on 08.09.2025.

¶34

The case of the Department is that forged documents were submitted alongwith the technical bid, and therefore, an order was passed against the petitioner. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2025.

¶35

The issue for consideration before this Court is whether the documents submitted by the petitioner alongwith the technical bid were in violation of the provisions of the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules (Rural Works Department), 2007, particularly Rule 11(a)(ix), which is reproduced hereinbelow:-.

¶36

“11 Black-Listing and Suspension:-

¶37

(a) (ix) On submission of false or forged security as earnest money and forged documents.”

¶38

Upon consideration of the materials on record,

¶39

this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to make a representation before respondent no. 2 namely, the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, limited to the issue of quantum of punishment. In

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.1438 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026 5/5

¶41

the event such a representation is filed, respondent no. 2, namely, the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, shall consider the same, afford an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶42

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present application stands disposed of.

¶43

Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand

¶44

disposed of.

¶45

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶46

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶47

U.K./- U

V. B. Buildcom v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. B. Buildcom v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kishor Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Siyaram Construction Vs The State of Bihar

Binod Kumar Bhutoria Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation

The State of Bihar Vs Indu Devi