Technicality  in the  procedural  law  is  not  available  as  a  defence  when  a matter  of  grave  public  importance  is  for  consideration before  the  court: Patna High Court.

A writ Petition was filled by the Petitioner Satyendra  Kumar  Construction  Pvt.  Ltd.  having  its  registered  office  at  202, Hira  Enclave,  New  Dak  Bunglow  Road,  P.S.  Kotwali,  District  Patna  through its   Director   Satyendra  Kumar,  aged  about  60  Years,  Male,  Son  of  Sri Bhagwan  Das,  resident  of  202,  Hira  Enclave,  New  Dak  Bunglow  Road,  P.S. Kotwali,  District  – Patna against The  State  of Bihar through  the  Chief  Secretary,  Government  of Bihar,  Patna and Ors.  The decision in the Satyendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Ltd. (CWJC No.4318 of 2022) was upheld by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR. 


This case was a Writ Petition filled under Article 226 of ‘The Constitution of India’. With this Petition the Petitioner (Satyendra Kumar) sought an appropriate relief, writ,  rule  or direction  quashing   the  decision   served by the Technical  Bid  Evaluation  Committee, Rural  Works Department,  on 3rd of March 2022, whereby  the  petitioner’s  Technical  Bid has been  rejected  on  a  nonest  ground  that  the firm  is debarred. The petitioner also asked for the Direction  upon  the  Respondents  to open the  financial  bid  of  the  petitioner  and  further Award  the  contract  if  the  petitioner  is otherwise eligible. Adding to that a they also asked the court to declare the Office  order  that has debarred the petitioner from  participating in  the future  contracts  has  become inoperative  on  account of  the  fact  that  the work  awarded  to  the  petitioner has  already been  completed.  and at last a restraining order to the respondent from finalizing  the  Tender and  creating  any  third  party rights during  the pendency  of  the present  writ  petition was sought.


The bench after analyzing the matter held that this cases  does not have any   demand   or refusal.   Thus,   no   ground whatsoever  is shown  here  for  the  issue  of  any writ,  order, or  direction  under  Article  226  of  the Constitution and conseqntly the petition was dismissed on certain conditions which include, application before competent authority by the Petitioner within  a  period  of  four  wweeks. Speedy disposal of the matter by the concerned authority. To comply with the principle of natural justice etcetera.


Click here to view Judgement

Leave a Reply

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