Patna High Court
Pipal Tree Ventures Private Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 20 July, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.670 of 2026
======================================================
Pipal Tree Ventures Private Limited a registered company having its
registered office at A - 202, Radium Apartment, Aarey Road, Goregaon (East)
Mumbai 400063 through its authorised representative namely Rajeev Ranjan
Kumar Singh male aged about 38 years son of Achchhe Lal Singh resident of
At and Post Raksa, P.S. Panapur Kariyat, Muzaffarpur, Bihar - 843109.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society having its office at first floor,
Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 800021 through its Chief Executive
Officer.
4. The Chief Executive Officer cum State Mission Director, Bihar Rural
Livelihood Promotion Society having its office at first floor, Vidyut Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna 800021.
5. The Administrative Officer, Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society
having its office at first floor, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-800021.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11
Mr. Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Raushan, Advocate
Ms. Shreyanshi Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 20-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Following is the relief sought for in the present writ
application:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
2/13
"a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order of blacklisting of the
petitioner as passed by the respondent chief executive
officer of the Bihar rural livelihood promotion Society
(hereinafter referred to as "the society" for short)
communicated vide letter bearing memo number
BRLPS/Proj-Jobs/626/14/Vol-III/3528 Dated 09.12.2025;
b) For further issuance of a writ or order or a
direction for restraining the respondents from implementing
and executing the impugned order of blacklisting of the
petitioner for all purposes including entitlement of the
petitioner to participate in future tenders of the society and
also restrain the respondents from recommending the
blacklisting and/or any other action by any other
government department or public sector undertaking
against the petitioner;
c) For further holding and a declaration that
the impugned order of blacklisting issued by respondent
Chief Executive Officer of the society is wholly mechanical,
nonspeaking and violative of the principles of natural
justice and as such has infringed the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the petitioner under article 14 and 19 (1) (g)
of the Constitution of India;
d) For further holding and a declaration that
the impugned order of blacklisting of the petitioner is
premature in absence of due compliance of the procedure
prescribed in clause 2.6 read with clause 8 of the general
conditions and clause 8.2 of the special conditions being
part of the agreement between the petitioner and the society
and as such unsustainable in the eye of law;
e) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to
which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of this case."
3. The present case arises out of an
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
3/13
agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.07.2014
executed between the petitioner and the respondent Society for
implementation of a placement-linked skill development
programme under the DDU-GKY Scheme in the districts of
Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Madhubani. The initial target of
training 3,000 candidates was subsequently revised under a
fresh agreement dated 17.02.2017 and was thereafter further
reduced in accordance with the revised guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Rural Development.
4. During the course of implementation of the project,
the respondent Society issued a series of show cause notices
alleging discrepancies in the documents submitted by the
petitioner in support of placement of trained candidates,
including alleged mismatches in bank account details and
submission of forged or fabricated records. The petitioner
submitted replies on various occasions and also participated in a
personal hearing. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated
09.12.2025
, the respondent Society blacklisted the petitioner for
a period of three years, terminated the project, directed recovery
of the entire first installment along with 10% interest, and
further directed initiation of certificate proceedings under the
Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
4/13
event of non-compliance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
although the petitioner submitted detailed replies to every show
cause notice and also participated in the personal hearing, the
explanations furnished by the petitioner have neither been
considered nor dealt with in the impugned order. It is further
submitted that the petitioner was never supplied the material
relied upon against it, thereby depriving it of an effective
opportunity to rebut the allegations.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent
failed to follow the contractual procedure prescribed under the
Memorandum of Understanding before terminating the project
and blacklisting the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the
mandatory procedure relating to issuance of notice, amicable
settlement of disputes, reference to the Project Approval
Committee and arbitration, as contemplated under the
agreement, was never followed before passing the impugned
order.
7. It is further submitted that the respondent itself
failed to undertake the periodic desk verification contemplated
under the applicable Standard Operating Procedure and, after
allowing several years to elapse, sought to verify placement
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
5/13
claims when candidates had changed their employment, mobile
numbers or bank accounts. Such delayed verification, according
to the petitioner, cannot be made the basis for alleging forgery
or imposing the extreme penalty of blacklisting.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed
strictly in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding, the DDU-GKY Scheme and the applicable
Standard Operating Procedure. It is submitted that the petitioner
had furnished forged and fabricated documents in support of its
placement claims, thereby indulging in fraudulent practices
warranting termination of the project, recovery of the advance
amount and blacklisting.
9. It is further submitted that the allegations against
the petitioner were established after detailed desk verification,
field verification and verification from ICICI Bank, which
revealed large-scale discrepancies in the placement documents,
including fake bank statements, invalid account numbers and
mismatched records. The respondents contend that the petitioner
failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation or authentic
material despite repeated opportunities.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
6/13
was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing throughout the
proceedings. Multiple show cause notices were issued, replies
submitted by the petitioner were duly considered and personal
hearings were also granted before the impugned action was
taken. It is, therefore, contended that there has been full
compliance with the principles of natural justice.
11. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the respondent authorities
were justified in passing the impugned order dated 09.12.2025
terminating the project, blacklisting the petitioner for a period of
three years and directing recovery of the advance amount with
interest, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the
impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of
its replies and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The said contention, however, does not merit acceptance. The
impugned order meticulously traces the sequence of events
beginning with the first show cause notice dated 17.09.2020,
followed by the petitioner’s reply, personal hearing dated
05.10.2020, subsequent communications, further show cause
notices dated 17.02.2023, 11.04.2023 and 14.07.2025, repeated
opportunities to furnish supporting documents and subsequent
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
7/13
personal hearings. The order further records that every
explanation furnished by the petitioner was examined and found
unsatisfactory for the reasons specifically assigned therein. Such
procedure, in the considered opinion of this Court, fully satisfies
the requirement of audi alteram partem.
13. In Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State
of West Bengal, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that although blacklisting entails serious
civil consequences, the same is legally sustainable where the
affected party has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of
hearing before the order is passed. The relevant part of the said
order reads as follows:
“19. Where the State is dealing with
individuals in transactions of sales and
purchase of goods, the two important
factors are that an individual is entitled
to trade with the Government and an
individual is entitled to a fair and equal
treatment with others. A duty to act fairly
can be interpreted as meaning a duty to
observe certain aspects of rules of
natural justice. A body may be under a
duty to give fair consideration to the
facts and to consider the representations
but not to disclose to those persons
details of information in its possession.
Sometimes duty to act fairly can also be
sustained without providing opportunity
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
8/13for an oral hearing. It will depend upon
the nature of the interest to be affected,
the circumstances in which a power is
exercised and the nature of sanctions
involved therein.
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.”
14. The next aspect which requires consideration is
whether the findings recorded by the respondent authority are
based on objective material or are merely founded upon
suspicion. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the
respondent authority did not proceed merely on the basis of
allegations. The placement claims submitted by the petitioner
were subjected to repeated verification by ICICI Bank, ECR
records were scrutinised, and field verification of beneficiaries
was conducted. The verification consistently disclosed
fabricated bank statements, discrepancies in the ECR records
and denial of placement by several beneficiaries during physical
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
9/13
verification. These findings were repeatedly communicated to
the petitioner and opportunities were granted to explain the
discrepancies. The petitioner, however, failed to furnish any
satisfactory explanation or authentic material capable of
dislodging the findings recorded during verification.
15. The explanation offered by the petitioner that the
placement documents had been collected from the candidates
and, therefore, any discrepancy therein could not be attributed to
it, has also been specifically dealt with in the impugned order.
The respondent authority has rightly observed that under the
Memorandum of Understanding governing the project, the
responsibility to maintain records and furnish genuine, authentic
and verifiable documents squarely rested upon the Project
Implementing Agency. The authority has further recorded that
submission of forged and fabricated documents amounted to
breach of Clause 1.9.1 of the Memorandum of Understanding.
This Court finds no perversity or irrationality in the aforesaid
reasoning.
16. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters
is equally well settled. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employer is the best
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
10/13
judge of compliance with contractual conditions and the writ
court ought not to substitute its own assessment unless the
decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or so irrational that
no reasonable authority could have arrived at such conclusion.
The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“15. We may add that the owner or the employer
of a project, having authored the tender
documents, is the best person to understand and
appreciate its requirements and interpret its
documents. The constitutional courts must defer
to this understanding and appreciation of the
tender documents, unless there is mala fide or
perversity in the understanding or appreciation
or in the application of the terms of the tender
conditions. It is possible that the owner or
employer of a project may give an interpretation
to the tender documents that is not acceptable to
the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a
reason for interfering with the interpretation
given.”
17. A similar principle has been reiterated in NG
Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, reported in (2022) 6 SCC
127, wherein it has been held that judicial review under Article
226 is directed towards examining the legality of the decision-
making process and not the correctness of the decision on
merits. The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“23. In view of the above judgments of
this Court, the writ court should refrain
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
11/13itself from imposing its decision over the
decision of the employer as to whether or
not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The
Court does not have the expertise to
examine the terms and conditions of the
present day economic activities of the
State and this limitation should be kept in
view. Courts should be even more
reluctant in interfering with contracts
involving technical issues as there is a
requirement of the necessary expertise to
adjudicate upon such issues. The
approach of the Court should be not to
find fault with magnifying glass in its
hands, rather the Court should examine
as to whether the decision-making
process is after complying with the
procedure contemplated by the tender
conditions. If the Court finds that there is
total arbitrariness or that the tender has
been granted in a mala fide manner, still
the Court should refrain from interfering
in the grant of tender but instead relegate
the parties to seek damages for the
wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct
the execution of the contract. The
injunction or interference in the tender
leads to additional costs on the State and
is also against public interest. Therefore,
the State and its citizens suffer twice,
firstly by paying escalation costs and
secondly, by being deprived of the
infrastructure for which the present day
Governments are expected to work.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
12/13
18. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate any procedural irregularity, mala fides or
arbitrariness in the process adopted by the respondent
authorities.
19. The challenge to the order of blacklisting is also
devoid of merit. It is settled principle that blacklisting is a
legitimate administrative measure where it is founded upon
objective material, follows observance of the principles of
natural justice and is proportionate to the misconduct
established.
20. In the present case, the impugned order records
not only the discrepancies established through repeated
verification but also the petitioner’s previous performance,
earlier warnings, imposition of minor penalty and repeated
opportunities granted for rectification before the extreme
penalty was imposed. The action of the respondent authorities,
therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or disproportionate.
21. Having regard to the entirety of the material on
record, this Court is satisfied that the respondent authorities
have acted strictly in accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding, the applicable Standard Operating Procedures
and the DDU-GKY Guidelines. No ground has been made out to
Patna High Court CWJC No.670 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
13/13
hold that the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness, mala
fides or violation of the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the issue framed is answered against the
petitioner.
22. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27.07.2026 Transmission Date NA
