Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court has directed the Bihar Medical Services Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (BMSICL) to reconsider its decision to debar a construction company for allegedly failing to complete a hospital boundary wall project. The Court’s order emphasizes that administrative decisions affecting livelihood must be revisited when relevant facts emerge, especially if delays were caused by the department itself.
The petitioner, a private construction company, was awarded a contract during 2018–19 for constructing a boundary wall at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College & Hospital, Bhagalpur. An agreement was signed with BMSICL for this purpose.
However, on 9 July 2019, BMSICL issued an order debarring the petitioner from future contracts on the ground that the work was not completed in time.
The petitioner challenged the debarment before the High Court, claiming:
- The delay was due to late handover of the site, not their fault.
- Despite the delay, the work had already been completed.
- A communication dated 10 August 2019 from the Hospital Superintendent to the Deputy General Manager of BMSICL confirmed that land possession had to be formally handed over before the construction could proceed.
The petitioner argued that since the work was completed and the delay was due to factors beyond their control, the debarment order had lost its purpose. However, they remained barred from participating in tenders as the order had not been officially withdrawn.
The High Court observed:
- If the petitioner’s claim about completion of work and delayed site possession was correct, the debarment order would lose its validity.
- There was nothing on record to confirm that the petitioner had been prevented from tender participation because of the order, but the concern was reasonable.
The Bench did not directly quash the order but directed the petitioner to approach the Chief Managing Director of BMSICL with their grievances. The CMD was instructed to review the matter, consider all circumstances, and take an appropriate decision—either recalling the debarment or issuing a fresh order—within two months of receiving the request.
By disposing of the writ petition with this direction, the Court left the door open for administrative correction without directly substituting its own decision for that of the competent authority.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative penalties like debarment must be revisited when new facts or clarifications emerge. For contractors working with government agencies:
- Departmental delays, like late site possession, cannot be used unfairly against them.
- Completion of the contracted work should prompt reconsideration of punitive orders.
- Representation before the competent authority is a necessary step before judicial intervention.
For government agencies, the case is a reminder that punitive orders should remain proportionate and relevant. If circumstances change—such as completion of the work or departmental fault in delay—the order should be reviewed to avoid unnecessary disputes and project disruptions.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Whether a contractor can be kept debarred when work has been completed and delay was due to the department’s fault.
Decision: The authority must review the order and take a decision considering all facts. - Whether judicial review should directly quash such an order without administrative review.
Decision: The High Court directed the petitioner to first approach the competent authority for reconsideration.
Case Title
Rohit Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bihar Medical Services Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3066 of 2020
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sanjay Karol
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar
Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate; Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP-25; Mr. Harendra Kumar, A.C. to GP-25
For the BMSICL: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General; Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
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.
