Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, a travel agency challenged orders passed by the Bihar Information and Public Relations Department (IPRD) and the Finance Department which had debarred it from participating in government work. The main grievance was that the debarment order did not mention how long the ban would last.
Background
The petitioner, a proprietor of a travel business, approached the Patna High Court against:
- An order dated 25 August 2022 issued by the Director, IPRD, Bihar.
- A subsequent order dated 14 November 2022 by the Special Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar.
Both orders had the effect of debarment, but neither specified the duration of the restriction. This, the petitioner argued, was arbitrary and unlawful.
The petitioner relied on a previous decision of the Patna High Court dated 1 December 2022 in M/s Ekta Enterprises v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 21293 of 2021, where the Court had held that a debarment order without a defined period cannot stand in law.
Court’s Observations
The Bench, led by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, noted that the earlier coordinate Bench ruling applied squarely to the present case. Since the impugned orders did not stipulate a specific duration for the debarment, they were unsustainable in their present form.
Decision
- The Court quashed both the 25 August 2022 and 14 November 2022 orders.
- Liberty was given to the respondents (IPRD and Finance Department) to issue a fresh order in accordance with law, this time clearly specifying the debarment period and ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards.
- The petitioner was directed to appear before the Director, IPRD, on 15 February 2023 at 10:30 AM with all supporting documents.
- The Director must consider the submissions and issue a reasoned, speaking order within two months, following principles of natural justice and granting an opportunity of hearing.
- The petitioner retained the right to pursue any alternative legal remedies available and to approach the Court again if necessary.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This ruling underscores a fundamental administrative law principle — any punitive order such as blacklisting or debarment must clearly state its duration. An indefinite ban, without clarity, is considered arbitrary and violates fairness requirements.
- For government departments, this judgment is a reminder to ensure transparency and specificity in such orders.
- For contractors, service providers, and suppliers, it reaffirms that courts can intervene where debarment is vague or procedurally defective.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Reasoning
- Whether a debarment order without specifying its duration is valid.
✘ No. Following M/s Ekta Enterprises v. State of Bihar, the Court held that such an order is legally flawed. - Relief granted.
✔ The orders were quashed with liberty to issue a fresh, lawful order after hearing the petitioner.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- M/s Ekta Enterprises v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 21293 of 2021, decided on 01.12.2022.
Case Title
Jai Maa Durga Travels v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17856 of 2022
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sanjay Karol
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Mr. Sunny Kumar, Mr. Rabibhushan Prasad
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal (SC-3), Mr. Arjun Prasad (AC to SC-3), Mr. Bipin Kumar (AC to SC-3)
Link to Judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
