Case Background
The petitioner is a construction firm that had been awarded a contract for construction of a 5000 MT capacity godown at Sikarvira, Jhajha, in the district of Jamui, under the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
The work was not completed within the time originally fixed. There was delay in execution. Because of this delay, the Executive Engineer, South Bihar Works Division, Patna, issued an order dated 29.03.2025. By this order, the petitioner was debarred from participating in the “immediately succeeding tender.”
After this, the petitioner completed the construction work. The respondent authorities were satisfied with the completion. The competent authority then issued a work experience certificate dated 17.07.2025, acknowledging successful execution of the project.
Once the work was completed and accepted, the petitioner submitted representations to the Executive Engineer and to the Corporation Headquarters. Through these, the petitioner requested that the debarment be revoked, since the work that had led to the debarment was now finished and accepted. No relief was granted on these representations.
Later, the Corporation issued NIT No. 01/SBD/2025-26 dated 28.08.2025 for construction of a Prefab Composite Godown of 1000 MT storage capacity at Karian, Block Shivajinagar, District Samastipur. The petitioner submitted its technical bid in this tender.
The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee met on 25.09.2025. In this meeting, the Committee rejected the petitioner’s technical bid by Letter No. 4176 dated 25.09.2025. One of the grounds taken was the earlier debarment order dated 29.03.2025.
The petitioner sent a representation dated 29.09.2025 requesting reconsideration of this rejection. However, by Letter No. 4312 dated 03.10.2025, the authorities reaffirmed the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid.
Thereafter, on 06.10.2025, the financial bids were opened. The work was awarded to respondent no. 7, Gyan Prakash, on the same day. A Letter of Intent was issued and an agreement executed on that date itself.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It challenged three things: rejection of its technical bid, award of work to respondent no. 7, and the debarment order dated 29.03.2025.
During pendency of the writ petition, the tender process for the Karian godown stood concluded and the contract was acted upon. Because of this, the part of the challenge relating to that tender became infructuous.
By order dated 30.06.2026, the Patna High Court recorded that the petitioner was confining its relief only to relief no. 1(vi). This surviving relief sought a declaration that the debarment dated 29.03.2025 was no longer operative after completion of the work and issuance of the work experience certificate dated 17.07.2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, heard the matter. The core question before the Court was narrow: could the debarment order dated 29.03.2025 continue to operate even after the work had been completed and accepted, and the contractor had received a work experience certificate?
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the debarment had “outlived its purpose.” It was emphasised that the very work for which the petitioner had been penalised by debarment was now fully completed to the respondents’ satisfaction.
Two key facts were stressed:
First, the department itself had issued a work experience certificate on 17.07.2025 acknowledging successful execution of the project.
Second, despite this, the respondents neither revoked the debarment nor acted on the repeated representations filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner described the continued operation of the debarment as arbitrary and contrary to law. The argument was that once the reason for a punitive action disappears, the punishment cannot continue without limit.
To support this, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731. From this judgment, the petitioner drew the principle that blacklisting or debarment must be proportionate and for a definite period, and cannot be indefinite.
On the other side, the respondents defended the original debarment order. They stated that the order dated 29.03.2025 had been validly passed because the petitioner had failed to complete the earlier work within the stipulated time.
They argued that the debarment flowed from the contractual terms and could not be treated as invalid merely because the petitioner later completed the work. In their view, late completion did not erase the earlier contractual default.
The respondents further contended that the petitioner had been debarred only from participating in the “immediately succeeding tender.” Therefore, according to them, the order was not indefinite or arbitrary. They asserted that there was no need for interference by the Court, as the order was in line with the contract conditions and administrative requirements.
After hearing both sides, the Court framed the limited issue: did the continued operation of the debarment, despite completion and acceptance of the work and issuance of the work experience certificate, amount to an “indefinite debarment”? If yes, was such continuation legally sustainable?
The Court first closely examined the language of the debarment order dated 29.03.2025. The order recorded that the petitioner was being debarred due to delay in completion of the 5000 MT godown work. It further stated that if the petitioner failed to complete the work by 31.01.2025, it would not be permitted to participate in the “next tender.” The order used the Hindi expression that the petitioner would be “debarred” from the “next tender.”
However, the Court observed that the order did not mention any clear period for which the debarment would continue. It also did not describe in what circumstances the debarment would come to an end.
In simple terms, while the order spoke of the “next tender,” it did not clarify whether completion of the work at a later date, or issuance of a completion certificate, would bring the debarment to a close. The Court found this silence important.
The Court then noted that it was admitted by both sides that the petitioner had, in fact, completed the work after the debarment order. A work experience certificate dated 17.07.2025 had been issued by the competent authority acknowledging successful execution.
Despite this, the respondents continued to rely upon the same debarment order when rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid in the later Karian tender, and did so without passing any fresh order explaining whether the debarment was still in force or had served its purpose.
Next, the Court turned to the law on debarment. It quoted at length from the Supreme Court decision in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL. The Supreme Court had held that while authorities awarding contracts do have an inherent power to blacklist or debar contractors, this power is subject to judicial review.
The key legal points highlighted from Kulja Industries were:
Blacklisting prevents a person from entering into a lawful, gainful relationship with the Government, and therefore has serious civil consequences.
The power must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in proportion to the gravity of the misconduct.
An order of blacklisting or debarment cannot be permanent or for an indefinite period. The duration must have a reasonable link with the seriousness of the default.
The Supreme Court also referred to earlier cases such as Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., and Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (PWD), which all applied the principle that fair hearing and proportionality are required when blacklisting a contractor.
Importantly, in paragraph 25 of Kulja Industries, the Supreme Court stated that “debarment is never permanent” and that the period of debarment would “invariably depend” on the nature of the offence committed.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court held that the respondents were justified in initially imposing debarment because the petitioner had delayed execution of the work. However, once the petitioner completed the work and the department itself issued a work completion/experience certificate, the continued operation of the same debarment order became unsustainable.
The Court reasoned that once the contractual obligations had been fulfilled and the work accepted, the very basis of the debarment ceased to exist. In the absence of any fresh order extending the debarment or giving reasons for its continuance, the debarment effectively became indefinite.
Such an indefinite debarment, the Court held, was impermissible in law in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance.
On this reasoning, the Court answered the framed issue in favour of the petitioner. It held that the debarment order dated 29.03.2025 could not be allowed to operate any further after completion and acceptance of the work and issuance of the work experience certificate.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the debarment order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-P/6). The writ petition was allowed to this limited extent. No further directions were noted, since the challenge to the tender process had already become infructuous.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is especially important for contractors and small construction firms that work with government departments and corporations.
Many times, a contractor may delay a project for various reasons, and the department may react by debarring the contractor from further tenders. This ruling clarifies that such debarment cannot continue indefinitely when the contractor later completes the work and the department accepts it.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that once the original problem is cured and the work is duly accepted, the punishment of debarment must be revisited. If the department wants to continue the debarment, it must pass a fresh, reasoned order that can be tested against the principle of proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court.
For ordinary contractors and business owners, this means that they are not helpless if a debarment order is used against them again and again long after the work is completed. They can rely on this judgment to ask that such orders be reviewed or challenged.
For government bodies, the decision is a reminder that tender-related penalties must be for a clear, definite period and must not silently turn into a permanent barrier to participation in public contracts.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a contractor continue to be debarred from tenders on the basis of a past delay even after the delayed work has been completed, accepted, and a work experience certificate has been issued, when no fresh order extends the debarment?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that continued reliance on such a debarment amounts to indefinite debarment, which is impermissible in law. The debarment order dated 29.03.2025 was set aside once the work stood completed and accepted.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731.
- Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. (citation not provided in the judgment text).
- Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (citation not provided in the judgment text).
- Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India (citation not provided in the judgment text).
- B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (citation not provided in the judgment text).
- Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (PWD) (citation not provided in the judgment text).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19706 of 2025
Case Title: M/s R.S. Construction v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (6) PLJR 127
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Date of Judgment: 14.07.2026
Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Kumar Anjaneya Shanu, Advocate; Mr. Ranvir Pratap Singh, Advocate
- For the Corporation: Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, AC to GP-5
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging debarment order and related tender actions, ultimately confined to challenge to debarment order.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTk3MDYjMjAyNSMxI04=—ak1–feRoLiH6bk=
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.
