Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the Patna High Court considered a petition filed by a construction company challenging an interim debarment order issued by the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation. The petitioner argued that although they had completed 99% of the assigned work by April 2019 and eventually handed over the project in full, they were still debarred from participating in further tenders.
The debarment order was issued on 21.05.2021 by the Executive Engineer and later confirmed by the Chief Engineer on 16.07.2021. The company contended that the order was arbitrary and malafide, aimed at disqualifying them from future tenders despite their substantial performance.
Upon reviewing the order, the Patna High Court observed that the debarment was only of an interregnum (temporary) nature and not a final decision. Importantly, the Court noted that since the initial order, no further final order had been passed by the Corporation.
Given the absence of a conclusive order, the Court disposed of the petition with specific directions: the Executive Engineer must now pass a final order considering all relevant facts and documents submitted by the petitioner. This process must comply with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard.
The Court emphasized that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the final decision once issued, they retain the right to challenge it through appropriate legal channels.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the importance of due process in government decision-making, particularly in matters that affect commercial rights and business reputations. Debarring a company from future contracts can have serious consequences, and such action must not be taken without a reasoned, final order based on facts and fairness.
The ruling serves as a reminder to public bodies that temporary or interim measures cannot become de facto final decisions unless duly concluded. It also protects businesses from administrative overreach and ensures that they are not unjustly denied opportunities without being given a chance to present their case.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Was the debarment order final in nature?
- No. The Court found it was an interregnum (temporary) order.
- Had the authorities passed a final decision after the debarment?
- No. No final order was shown to the Court.
- Did the Court quash the debarment?
- Not directly. Instead, the Court directed the concerned authority to pass a final order after giving the petitioner a hearing.
- Can the petitioner challenge the final order later?
- Yes. The petitioner can legally challenge the final decision once issued.
Case Title
M/s Rehanam Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
CWJC No. 10673 of 2022
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar
Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate – for the petitioner
Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate – for the respondents
Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/377999a1-3ff3-4447-b06a-3c870c18ebc0.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.
