Patna High Court
Ramesh Prasad GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the subsequent Appellate Authority order cannot be given retrospective effect and the 05.05.2025 decision remains valid, leading to dismissal of the writ.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the ex‑parte decision of the Departmental Tender Committee dated 05.05.2025, which after initially declaring his technical bid responsive and his financial bid the lowest, re‑evaluated the bids and declared them non‑responsive, awarding the contract to another firm. The challenge was based on a prior communication (Letter No. 643 dated 12.04.2025) indicating that the petitioner had eight incomplete projects, which was later set aside by a coordinate bench and remanded for fresh consideration. The respondent issued a fresh order on 11.12.2025 reaffirming the eight incomplete projects, and the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Authority, whose order of 17.03.2026 was sought to be given retrospective effect to invalidate the 05.05.2025 decision. The Court held that an administrative order must be judged on the facts and material available at the time of its issuance and cannot be retrospectively invalidated by later developments. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the limits of judicial review in tender matters, the Court found no merit in the writ and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- The later order of the Appellate Authority (Memo No. 1847 dated 17.03.2026) can it be given retrospective effect to invalidate the Departmental Tender Committee's decision dated 05.05.2025?
- Whether the ex‑parte decision of the Tender Committee can be quashed on the ground that it was based on material later set aside.
Subjects
- tender
- procurement
- administrative action
- judicial review
- ex‑parte decision
- retrospective effect
- contract award
- Wednesbury principle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8949 of 2025
===================================================
Ramesh Prasad Gupta, Male, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Laxman
Prasad Gupta, Resident of 104, Tari Mohalla, Near Akhtar Hind Press, P.S.
Ara Town, District Bhojpur, Bihar 802301.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer In-Chief, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur, District
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Banka, District
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
6. M/s Maa Laxmi Construction, through its Proprietor Reena Devi, Resident
of Village- Kairba, P.O. Saho Bigha, District Jehanabad, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
===================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Amish Kumar, A.C. to A.G.
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
3 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner, in the present writ application, has
sought the following reliefs:
“1 (I) Quashing of the ex-parte decision of
the Departmental Tender Committee dated
05.05.2025 contained in Letter No. 448
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
2/12
corresponding to the Notice Inviting Tender
No. 07/2024-25 (Group No. 16) (Annexure
P/4) by which, after declaring the technical
bid of the petitioner responsive, after
opening of the financial bid and declaring
the petitioner as Lowest Bidder, the technical
bid has again been re-evaluated at the
instance of third party to the bidding process
and the technical bid and financial bid of the
petitioner has been declared non-responsive
with a further direction to award the work to
M/s. Maa Laxmi Construction at a price of
17.5% below the schedule of rate;
(ii) Restraining the Respondents from giving
effect to the order dated 05.05.2025
(Annexure P/4) the pendency of the present
writ application and/or the without the leave
of this Hon’ble Court.”
3. Upon perusal of Memo No. 448 (Mo) dated
05.05.2025 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ application), it appears
that the petitioner was disqualified from the tender process for
the following reasons:-
“4- foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr dk fu.kZ;&
lfefr ds le{k miLFkkfir lays[k ij fopkjksijkUr
foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr] eq[; vfHk;ark] y?kq ty
lalk/ku foHkkx] Hkkxyiqj ds i=kad&787 fnukad 04-03-
2025 }kjk vuq”kalk fd;k x;k gSA
mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr fufonk dk rduhdh chM
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
3/12
dk ewY;kad.k dh dkjZokbZ fnukad 19-02-2025 dks fuxZr
dh xbZ gSA Jh jes”k izlkn xqIrk dks y?kq flapkbZ
izeaMy] jksgrkl vUrxZr foRrh; o’kZ 2023&24 esa 10
¼nl½ vnn vkoafVr dk;ksZa esa ls 08 ¼vkB½ vnn
;kstukvksa dk th.kksZ}kj dk;Z iwjk ugha fd;s tkus ds
dkj.k dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy] jksgrkl
ds i=kad 643 fnukad 12-04-2025 ds }kjk fMckj fd;k
x;k gSA
Li’V gS fd Jh xqIrk ds }kjk rF;ksa dks Nqikdj
xyr “kiFk i= ds vk/kkj ij fufonk izkIr fd;s tkus
dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA ftlls SBD dh IFB dafMdk
4-8 dk mYya?ku gqvk gSA vr,o budh foRrh; fufonk
dks vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA”
4. The record further reveals that the aforesaid
decision was based upon Letter No. 643 dated 12.04.2025
(Annexure-P/6 to the writ application), whereby the respondent
authorities had indicated that out of 10 ongoing projects, 08
projects attributed to the petitioner had not been completed.
5. The said communication dated 12.04.2025
(Annexure-P/6 to the writ application) was challenged by the
petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8572 of 2025, wherein a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.09.2025, was pleased
to pass the following order:
“3. Accordingly, impugned action dated
12.04.2025 stands set aside. The matter is
remanded to the concerned authority to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
4/12
proceed to pass a fresh order after due
consideration of the notice dated 24.09.2024
read with the petitioner’s reply dated
22.04.2025 within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of this order.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any
stand disposed of.”
6. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the respondent
authorities passed a fresh order vide Letter No. 69 dated
11.12.2025, which reads as follows:
“ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr mDr
U;k;kns”k ds vkyksd esa dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] y?kq flapkbZ
izeaMy] jksgrkl] lklkjke ds i=kad&1912 fnukad& 20-
09-2025 }kjk laosnd dks fMckj djus laca/kh vkns”k
i=kad&643 fnukad&12-04-2025 dks fujLr dj fn;k
x;k] ,oa dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy]
jksgrkl] lklkjke ds 2113 fnukad&22-10-2025 ,oa
v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] y?kq flapkbZ vapy] iVuk ds
i=kad&2759 fnukad&29-10-2025 }kjk laosnd dks fMckj
djus gsrq Hksts x;s izLrko ds vkyksd esa eq[; vfHk;ark]
y?kq ty lalk/ku foHkkx] iVuk ds i=kad&3532
fnukad&31-10-2025 }kjk laosnd ds fo:) fMckj dh
dkjZokbZ gsrq fofgr izi= esa vuq”kalk lfgr izLrko ,oa
lacaf/kr vfHkys[kksa dh izfr bl dk;kZy; dks miyC/k
djk;h x;hA mDr izLrko ds vkyksd vxzsrj dkjZokbZ ds
iwoZ laosnd dk i{k izkIr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksus
ds dkj.k fcgkj Bhdsnkjh fuca/ku fu;ekoyh] 2007 ds
fu;e 11¼[k½ ds rgr bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad&1126
fnukad&11-11-2025 }kjk laosnd ls dkj.k i`PNk dh
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
5/12
x;h ftldk tcko muds i=kad Ref No. -RAM/71
fnukad&17-11-2025 }kjk bl dk;kZy; dks miyC/k
djk;k x;k ftlesa laosnd }kjk mUgsa vkoafVr 10
vn~n ;kstukvksa dk th.kksZ)kj dk;Z esa ls 08 ¼vkB½ vn~n
;kstukvksa dk dk;Z iw.kZ ugha djus gsrq LFkkuh;
fookn ,oa Hkwfe dh vuqiyC/krk dks dkj.k crk;k x;k gS]
ijUrq foHkkx }kjk bl laca/k esa tkap gsrq vij lfpo]
y?kq ty lalk/ku foHkkx] iVuk dh v/;{krk esa xfBr
tkap ny }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu ds voyksdu ls Li’V
gksrk gS fd dqN ,d ekeyksa tgka fookn Fkk] dks NksM+dj
laosnd }kjk mu dk;ksZa dks Hkh iwjk ugha fd;k x;k gS]
tgkWa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA vr% laosnd dk Li’Vhdj.k
iw.kZr% Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA
vr% of.kZr ifjizs{; esa laosnd dk tcko
iw.kZ :i ls Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gksus ds dkj.k lE;d
fopkjksijkUr izkIr Li’Vhdj.k ds tokc dks vekU; djrs
gq, laosnd Jh jes”k izlkn xqIrk] firk& LOk0 y{eh
izlkn xqIrk] eksgYyk&rjh eksgYyk] v[kkM+k fgUn izsl ds
utnhd] iks0&vkjk pkSd] Fkkuk& vkjk “kgj] ftyk
Hkkstiwj] fiu dksM&802301 ¼fuca/ku la0&
MWRD0924C1IN492057 Js.kh&1½ dks fcgkj
Bhdsnkjh fuca/ku fu;ekoyh] 2007 dh dafMdk 11 ¼d½
dh mi dafMdk&(ii) esa fufgr izko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa
vxys vkns”k rd fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls oafpr@fMckj
fd;k tkrk gSA”
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came
to be decided vide Memo No. 1847 dated 17.03.2026. The
Appellate Authority, in paragraph nos. 7 and 8, held as under:
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
6/12
“7- Jh xqIrk ds vH;kosnu dh leh{kk vihyh; izkf/kdkj
}kjk dh x;hA leh{kksijkUr fuxZr foHkkxh; vkns”k
la0&1613 fnukad&06-03-2026 dks fujLr@jn~n fd;k
tkrk gSA lkFk gh eq[; vfHk;ark ¼;ks0$vuq0$Hkw0½] y?kq
ty lalk/ku foHkkx] iVuk dk ldkj.k vkns”k la0&69
lg&ifBr Kkikad&1284 fnukad&11-12-2025 }kjk
laosnd Jh jes”k dqekj xqIrk dks vxys vkns”k rd
fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls oafpr@fMckj fd;s tkus laca/kh
vkns”k ds fo:) muds vihy vH;kosnu dks rRdky
izHkko ls Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA
8- mDr vk”k; ds izLrko ij vihyh; izkf/kdkj dk
vuqeksnu izkIr gSA”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the issue relating to the alleged 08 pending projects is
subject matter of consideration before the Appellate Authority
and interim protection has been granted in favour of the
petitioner, the respondents were not justified in issuing Memo
No. 448(Mo) dated 05.05.2025.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits
that the order dated 05.05.2025 has to be examined on the basis
of the materials available on that date. It is submitted that on the
relevant date, Letter No. 643 dated 12.04.2025 was in existence
and formed the basis of the impugned decision. It is further
submitted that although the said letter was subsequently set
aside and reconsidered, even the fresh decision dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
7/12
11.12.2025 records that 08 projects remained incomplete,
thereby justifying the action of the respondents.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the materials on record, the core issue which
arises for consideration is as to whether the subsequent order
passed by the Appellate Authority vide Memo No. 1847 dated
17.03.2026 can be applied retrospectively so as to invalidate the
decision of the Departmental Tender Committee dated
05.05.2025.
11. It is a settled principle of law that the validity of
an administrative or executive action is to be adjudged on the
basis of the facts and materials which were available at the time
when such decision was taken. Subsequent developments cannot
ordinarily be relied upon to either validate or invalidate an
action which was otherwise lawful on the date of its issuance.
12. In this regard, reference may be made to the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh
Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC
405, wherein it has been held that an order must stand or fall on
the reasons contained therein and cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons or subsequent developments. The relevant part of
the said order reads as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
8/12
“8. The second equally relevant matter
is that when a statutory functionary makes
an order based on certain grounds, its
validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to court
on account of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later brought out. We
may here draw attention to the observations
of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr.
of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji,] :
“Public orders, publicly made, in
exercise of a statutory authority cannot be
construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the
order of what he meant, or of what was in
his mind, or what he intended to do. Public
orders made by public authorities are meant
to have public effect and are intended to
affect the actings and conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be
construed objectively with reference to the
language used in the order itself.”
Orders are not like old wine becoming
better as they grow older.”
13. Apart from the above, it is equally well settled
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
9/12
that in matters relating to award of contracts, the scope of
judicial review is extremely limited. In Tata Cellular v. Union
of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in paragraphs 70 and 94, held that the Court does not sit
as an appellate authority over administrative decisions in tender
matters and judicial review is confined to examining the
decision-making process and not the merits of the decision
itself.
“94. The principles deducible from the
above are: (1) The modern trend points to
judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of
appeal but merely reviews the manner in
which the decision was made. (3) The court
does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the
administrative decision is permitted it will be
substituting its own decision, without the
necessary expertise which itself may be
fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to
tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny
because the invitation to tender is in the
realm of contract. Normally speaking, the
decision to accept the tender or award the
contract is reached by process of
negotiations through several tiers. More
often than not, such decisions are made
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
10/12
qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government
must have freedom of contract. In other
words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body
functioning in an administrative sphere or
quasi-administrative sphere. However, the
decision must not only be tested by the
application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts
pointed out above) but must be free from
arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated
by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may
impose heavy administrative burden on the
administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditure.”
14. The said principle has been further reiterated in
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation
Ltd. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, wherein in paragraph 15, it
has been held that the employer is the best judge of its
requirements and the Court should exercise restraint unless the
decision is found to be arbitrary, mala fide or in violation of
statutory provisions. The relevant extract of said order reads as:
“15. We may add that the owner or the
employer of a project, having authored the
tender documents, is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
11/12
and interpret its documents. The
constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the
tender documents, unless there is mala fide
or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the
terms of the tender conditions. It is possible
that the owner or employer of a project may
give an interpretation to the tender
documents that is not acceptable to the
constitutional courts but that by itself is not
a reason for interfering with the
interpretation given.”
15. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the
facts of the present case, it is evident that on the date of issuance
of Memo No. 448 dated 05.05.2025, the communication dated
12.04.2025 was in existence and formed the basis of the
impugned decision. The subsequent setting aside of the said
communication and remand of the matter would not, by itself,
render the earlier decision illegal by putting the clock back.
More so, when upon reconsideration, the competent authority,
vide order dated 11.12.2025, has again recorded that 08 ongoing
projects attributed to the petitioner remained incomplete.
16. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the subsequent order passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8949 of 2025(3) dt.21-04-2026
12/12
Appellate Authority dated 17.03.2026 cannot be given
retrospective effect so as to invalidate the decision dated
05.05.2025, which was otherwise based on the materials
available at the relevant point of time.
17. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the
present writ application and the same stands dismissed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Shailendra Singh, J)
U.K./-A.F.R.
U
Checking your session…