Case Background
This case arose from a government tender issued by the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, for a prestigious construction project in Patna.
On 16.12.2024, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-3 (Respondent No. 5) issued a re-tender inviting notice bearing S.B.D. (EPC) E-tender No. 03, Cons-3/2024-25. The work related to construction of Rajendra Bhawan, Governor Secretariat and Guest House in the campus of Raj Bhawan, Patna.
The petitioner, a construction company, submitted its bid in response to this notice. On 03.01.2025, during the pre-bid meeting, one of the prospective bidders, BPC Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. (described as Respondent No. 6 in that context), raised objections to certain eligibility conditions. Specifically, objections were made to the requirement of prior experience in construction of a guest house and a basement.
The respondents rejected these objections on the same day, 03.01.2025, without assigning reasons in the record referred to in the judgment. The tender process continued.
On 17.01.2025, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee considered the bids. At that stage, the petitioner’s technical bid was found to be in order. The Committee adjudged it responsive and competent to execute the work as per the initial evaluation.
However, events changed later. On 31.01.2025, the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee re-evaluated the petitioner’s technical bid. In this subsequent scrutiny, the Committee declared the petitioner’s technical bid non-responsive. At the same time, it decided to consider the financial bid of the sole remaining responsive bidder, M/s Dipanshu Promoter and Builder Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition).
Parallelly, certain objections and complaints were filed. According to the record, after the tentative decision initially went in favour of the petitioner at the technical stage, the official respondents received objections and complaints from some bidders as well as from a political person. The core allegation in these objections was that the petitioner did not meet the qualification relating to prior experience in construction of a guest house.
In this backdrop, the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee disqualified the petitioner’s technical bid and proceeded with only one bidder, leading to acceptance of the financial bid of Respondent No. 6, recorded in Memo No. 417 dated 10.02.2025. Work was thereafter awarded to Respondent No. 6 on 10.02.2025.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction. The company challenged both the rejection of its technical bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 6’s financial bid.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition sought multiple reliefs. Broadly, the petitioner requested the Court to set aside the decision of the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee dated 31.01.2025 rejecting its technical bid for the tender S.B.D. (EPC) E-tender No. 03, Cons-3/2024-25. It also asked for directions to accept its technical bid, consider its financial bid, and restrain the respondents from allotting or proceeding with the work under that tender during the writ proceedings.
Further, the petitioner challenged the decision recorded in Memo No. 417 dated 10.02.2025, by which the financial bid of M/s Dipanshu Promoter and Builder Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 6) was accepted. It alleged that this acceptance followed an illegal and arbitrary rejection of its own technical bid.
The core of the petitioner’s argument was that its bid had initially been found technically qualified by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee on 17.01.2025. According to the petitioner, once it had tentatively cleared the technical stage, it could not be disqualified later without following basic principles of natural justice.
The petitioner contended that the subsequent decision of 31.01.2025 was taken behind its back, based on complaints and objections which were never supplied to it. It argued that it was entitled to at least a notice and an opportunity to reply before its technical bid was reversed from “responsive” to “non-responsive”.
The petitioner also alleged that the respondents acted on a political person’s objection, and that extraneous material and political pressure were used to oust it from the tender. On this basis, the petitioner attacked the decision-making as arbitrary and mala fide.
To support its plea on violation of natural justice, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including:
Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517; Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651; Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 267; and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 706.
On the other side, the learned Advocate General representing the State took a different stand. He admitted that initially the decision appeared to be in favour of the petitioner. But he explained that, after receipt of objections from a political person and also from other bidders, the Department had to verify whether the petitioner actually fulfilled the core eligibility condition of having prior experience in construction of a guest house.
The crucial eligibility condition, as noted by the Court, was specific: for this tender concerning construction of a guest house at Raj Bhawan premises, experience in construction of a guest house was mandatory.
The State authorities examined the experience certificate produced by the petitioner. They then referred this certificate to its issuing authority, i.e., the author of the work experience certificate. The author replied and furnished materials. His response indicated that the petitioner had not executed construction of a guest house in toto.
Instead, the author stated that the petitioner had executed a residential building or flats, which were later converted into a guest house. In simple terms, the petitioner had constructed residential units, not an independent guest house structure.
On this basis, the Advocate General argued that the petitioner never met the core eligibility requirement laid down in the tender. Therefore, issuing a show cause notice or providing a further hearing on this point would not change the factual position. The petitioner could not “improve” its past work experience or alter the contents of the certificate issued by the author.
To answer the natural justice plea, the Advocate General cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Another, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 744. He relied particularly on paragraph 68, where the Supreme Court clarified that the application of natural justice depends on the facts and legal framework of each case, and that there is no universal straightjacket formula. The Court there classified cases into three broad categories, including cases where non-compliance with natural justice does not cause prejudice and relates to a directory action.
Respondent No. 6 also appeared through senior counsel. It was submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 6 that the petitioner had produced a fake completion certificate of a guest house. However, the Patna High Court expressly did not accept this allegation in the absence of support from the certificate’s author. The Court noted that the author of the certificate never said it was fake, but only clarified that the construction done by the petitioner was of residential building/flats that were later converted into a guest house.
After hearing all sides, the Court identified the core issue as whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of principles of natural justice in the given facts.
The Court examined the tender condition. It recorded that the tender notification clearly stipulated that for construction of the guest house, experience in construction of guest house was required. The petitioner had furnished an experience certificate claiming guest house construction. But, after verification with the issuing authority, it emerged that the petitioner had not constructed a guest house independently. Rather, it had constructed residential buildings or flats later converted into a guest house.
On these facts, the Court held that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite experience requirement for construction of a guest house independently as specified in the tender. This went to the root of eligibility.
The Court reasoned that, even assuming the official respondents had issued a show cause notice and sought an explanation from the petitioner, the petitioner could not have improved or modified the certificate already issued by the author of the document. The factual contents of the certificate were beyond the petitioner’s control at this stage.
Regarding the allegation of political interference, the Court noted that the respondents had not acted solely on a political objection. They also considered objections from another bidder about the petitioner’s lack of independent guest house experience. The Court found that the authorities conducted an objective verification by referring the matter to the author of the experience certificate. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner’s contention that extraneous or political pressure led to its exclusion was incorrect.
On the case law cited by the petitioner, the Court expressly stated that the four Supreme Court judgments relied upon did not assist the petitioner on the issue of natural justice in these facts. The Court emphasised that, even if notice had been given, the petitioner could not meet the experience requirement for guest house construction. Hence, the principles of natural justice could not be “straightway applicable” in the manner argued by the petitioner. The applicability depended on the facts of each case, and here no prejudice was shown.
Finally, the Court also took note of the passage of time and the stage of execution of the work. It observed that the work had already been awarded to Respondent No. 6 on 10.02.2025. By the time of decision, in early September 2025, more than six months had elapsed out of the 18-month tenure of the work. Considering this, the Court held that it was not appropriate to interfere with the impugned action of the respondents at such an advanced stage of the contract.
In conclusion, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition. It upheld the decisions of the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid and proceeding with the financial bid and work order in favour of Respondent No. 6.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for contractors and bidders participating in government tenders in Bihar and elsewhere.
First, it shows that when a tender clearly requires a specific type of experience, such as construction of a guest house, experience in closely related but technically different work, like residential flats later converted into a guest house, may not be enough. Authorities and courts can insist on strict compliance with eligibility conditions.
Second, the decision clarifies that principles of natural justice, such as the right to prior notice and hearing, are not a cure for a basic lack of eligibility. If the underlying facts, as verified from independent sources, show that a bidder never had the required experience, then issuing a show cause notice may not change the outcome. Courts may decline to interfere on this ground.
Third, the Court examined allegations of political interference but refused to interfere where the record showed that the department also relied on bidders’ objections and independent verification from the certificate-issuing authority. This signals that mere reference to a political complaint is not enough; there must be proof that it improperly shaped the decision.
Finally, the judgment underlines that timing matters. Once a work has been awarded and a substantial portion of the contract period has run, courts are generally reluctant to unsettle ongoing public works, especially significant projects like those in Raj Bhawan premises. This provides predictability for executing agencies and successful bidders.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Was the petitioner entitled to the benefit of principles of natural justice (such as notice and opportunity to reply) before its technical bid was reversed from responsive to non-responsive?
Answer: The Court held that, in the facts of this case, even if notice had been given, the petitioner could not have improved or changed the contents of its experience certificate. Since the certificate’s author confirmed that the petitioner had not constructed a guest house independently, the petitioner did not meet the tender’s eligibility requirement. Therefore, the principles of natural justice did not aid the petitioner, and no interference was warranted. -
Issue: Did the petitioner satisfy the tender condition of having prior experience in construction of a guest house as required for S.B.D. (EPC) E-tender No. 03, Cons-3/2024-25?
Answer: No. Based on verification with the author of the experience certificate, the Court found that the petitioner had constructed residential buildings/flats, which were later converted into a guest house, and had not constructed a guest house independently. Hence, the petitioner failed to meet the essential eligibility condition. -
Issue: Should the Court interfere with the work order already awarded to Respondent No. 6 for the Raj Bhawan project?
Answer: No. The work had been awarded on 10.02.2025, and by September 2025 more than six months of the 18-month work tenure had passed. The Court held that at this stage it would not be appropriate to interfere with the ongoing contract and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 (cited by petitioner; held not to assist on natural justice in these facts).
- Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 (cited by petitioner; not found helpful on the core issue in this case).
- Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 (cited by petitioner; distinguished by the Court).
- State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706 (cited by petitioner; did not advance the petitioner’s natural justice claim here).
- Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 744 (relied upon by the State; particularly paragraph 68 on the variable application of natural justice principles).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2376 of 2025
Case Title: M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 255
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha
Date of Judgment: 02.09.2025 (Uploading Date: 04.09.2025)
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate; Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Advocates for Respondent/State: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General; Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Advocate; Mr. Shantanu Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Aamit Hayat, Advocate; Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
Advocates for Respondent No. 6: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Yash Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ishan Singh, Advocate; Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging rejection of technical bid, acceptance of rival bidder’s financial bid, and award of government construction work under S.B.D. (EPC) E-tender No. 03, Cons-3/2024-25.
Impugned Decisions: Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee Meeting dated 31.01.2025 rejecting petitioner’s technical bid; Memo No. 417 dated 10.02.2025 accepting financial bid of Respondent No. 6 and awarding work.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
