The Patna High Court has delivered its judgment in a case where a private construction company challenged the rejection of its technical bid in two separate government tenders. The dispute related to projects under the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, from the year 2016. The petitioner stated that on 2nd August 2016, it received two SMS messages informing that its bids for Tender No. 2016_ECBIH_40990_1 and Tender No. 2016_ECBIH_40985_1 had been rejected during technical evaluation by a duly constituted committee “as per NIT” (Notice Inviting Tender).
The petitioner argued that if the only ground for rejection was its previous debarment from tenders, and there was no other technical deficiency, the department should have accepted its technical bid. On this basis, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking three key reliefs—(1) a direction to produce the official rejection order, (2) a direction to accept its technical bid if no other shortcomings existed, and (3) any other appropriate orders as the court deemed fit. However, on the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The court also noted that since the filing of the writ petition in 2016, no interim order was ever passed to stay the tender process. Given the passage of several years, the court presumed that the tenders had already been awarded and work had been carried out, or that fresh tenders had been issued. The judges observed that at this stage, hearing the matter would serve no practical purpose. Since the tender process had already been concluded, the court held the case to be infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Why is this judgment important?
This decision reinforces a critical principle in tender-related litigation: timeliness. In public contract disputes, delays can prove fatal to a case because the government cannot indefinitely delay development works while awaiting a court’s decision. If no interim stay is granted, the tender process continues, and once a contract is awarded and executed, courts are generally reluctant to interfere.
Lesson for contractors – If you wish to challenge a tender rejection, you must act promptly and secure an interim order to protect your rights. Otherwise, even if the rejection was wrongful, the delay may render the legal remedy ineffective.
Message for government departments – Once the tender process is concluded, courts will not ordinarily reopen it, thereby preventing delays and cost escalation in public projects.
Legal Issue and Court’s Decision (In Brief)
- Issue – Can the rejection of a technical bid be challenged several years later when the tender has already been executed?
- Decision – Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
- Reasoning – No interim order at the time of filing; several years have passed; tenders are presumed to have been awarded and possibly executed; no practical purpose in interfering now.
Case Title – Arpit Engicon Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number – Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14003 of 2016
Coram – Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Advocates – For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay, GA 5; For the Petitioner: None appeared at final hearing
Link to Judgment – https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/eb06261d-e51b-42dd-84c5-57f6aae9503e.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.
