Patna High Court Closes Contractor's Petition Challenging Debarment After Grievance Gets Resolved

Patna High Court Closes Contractor’s Petition Challenging Debarment After Grievance Gets Resolved

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a recent order, the Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a contractor who was aggrieved by his debarment from government tenders due to alleged irregularities in road construction works. The case revolved around the petitioner challenging both the department-wide inspection order issued by the Rural Works Department (RWD), Government of Bihar, and the specific orders debarring him based on alleged findings during the inspections.

The case was registered as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22069 of 2019. The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to quash several departmental actions, primarily:

  1. A letter dated 13.09.2019 (Letter No. 4037) issued by the Secretary, Rural Works Department, which directed all engineers in the department to inspect road works and immediately debar any contractor if irregularities were found.
  2. Subsequent debarment orders issued against the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Gopalganj-II, on 17.09.2019 and 24.09.2019.

The petitioner contended that the inspections were conducted without giving him any notice or opportunity to present his side, thus violating principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.

He further argued that the blanket direction in the departmental letter allowing field engineers to debar contractors on the spot, without any prior hearing, was arbitrary and unlawful. He sought relief from the court to declare the debarment orders void and to permit him to participate in future tenders.

However, when the matter came up for hearing on 13.12.2022 before the division bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the petitioner’s grievance had already been redressed. This meant that either the debarment had been lifted or its effects neutralized, making further adjudication unnecessary.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ petition, declaring it infructuous, meaning that the petition no longer served any practical purpose since the problem had already been resolved.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment is a reminder that government actions impacting the rights or reputation of private contractors—such as blacklisting or debarment—must comply with the basic principles of fairness and natural justice. Even though the court did not pronounce a ruling on the legality of the debarment in this case (as the issue was resolved), it highlights the growing trend of judicial scrutiny over administrative decisions that lack procedural safeguards.

For contractors and vendors working with government departments, the case emphasizes the importance of defending one’s rights when procedural lapses occur, such as being penalized without notice. It also encourages departments to avoid arbitrary or blanket punishments that bypass legal due process.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

  • Whether the general inspection and debarment order (Letter No. 4037 dated 13.09.2019) was legally valid?
    • Not decided. The petition became infructuous before the court could examine this issue.
  • Whether the specific debarment orders against the petitioner violated natural justice and Article 14?
    • Not decided. Since the petitioner’s grievance was resolved, the court did not deliver a finding.
  • Final outcome: The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous after the petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that the grievance was no longer relevant.

Case Title
Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Others

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22069 of 2019

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
Mr. Ravindra Kumar – for the Petitioner
Mr. Ajay (Government Advocate 5) – for the Respondents

Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/f7eca6a7-6e0e-46b7-b031-3fc932027ca1.pdf&search=Debarment

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.

Aditya Kumar

Aditya Kumar is a dedicated and detail-oriented legal intern with a strong academic foundation in law and a growing interest in legal research and writing. He is currently pursuing his legal education with a focus on litigation, policy, and public law. Aditya has interned with reputed law offices and assisted in drafting legal documents, conducting research, and understanding court procedures, particularly in the High Court of Patna. Known for his clarity of thought and commitment to learning, Aditya contributes to Samvida Law Associates by simplifying complex legal topics for public understanding through well-researched blog posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News