Bombay High Court
ARTEFACT PROJECTS LIMITED AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the one‑year debarment period had already expired, rendering the order ineffective and the petition untimely.
Summary
Artefact Projects Ltd and another challenged an order that debarred them and their directors from participating in future MORT&H highway projects in Maharashtra for one year, on the ground of alleged defaults in execution and maintenance. The debarment order was issued by the Chief Engineer, Konkan Bhavan, after a show‑cause notice. The petition was filed in 2022 but was heard only in January 2026, by which time the one‑year debarment had already expired on 29 September 2021. The Court held that a petition cannot be entertained after the lapse of five years from the date of the order when the sanction itself has ceased to operate. Consequently, the petitioners were deemed eligible to bid in future projects and the petition was disposed. The Court clarified that the stigma attached to the order does not survive the expiry of the debarment period.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a debarment order after its statutory period has expired?
- Can a petition challenging a debarment order be entertained after a significant delay (five years) from the date of the order?
- Does the stigma of a debarment continue to affect the petitioner after the debarment period ends?
Subjects
- debarment
- public procurement
- show‑cause notice
- administrative order
- limitation period
- stigma
- bidding eligibility
- highway projects
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.01.30
CHITNIS 13:14:39 +0530
22-wp.4586.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4586 OF 2022
Artefact Projects Limited and Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Gopal Machiraju (Through video-conferencing) with Ms. Ruchi
Wagaralkar i/b Mr. Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioners.
Mr. Dipesh Siroya, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1– State.
Mr. N. R. Bubna, a/w Ms. Pooja Malik for the Respondent No.2-UOI.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 28th JANUARY 2026
P.C. :
1. The petition raises a challenge to an order debarring it
from pre-qualification/participation/engagement for bidding for the
future projects to be undertaken by the MORT&H Projects in
Maharashtra either directly or indirectly for a period of one year. The
said order being passed by the Chief Engineer, Konkan Bhavan, Navi
Mumbai was preceded by issuance of a show-cause-notice and a
conclusion being drawn that there were several defaults noticed in
N. S. Chitnis 1/2
22-wp.4586.2022.doc
proper execution and maintenance of the subject highway and the
Competent Authority decided to debar the petitioners and its directors
for a period of one year.
2. The petition being filed in the year 2022 has appeared
before us in January 2026 when the period of debarment is already
over. Though learned counsel would submit that the order had cast a
stigma upon him, we are of the opinion that since the period of
debarment is already over, the petition do not deserve to be
entertained after a lapse of five years after the date of passing of the
order. In any case we clarify that since the period of debarment was
only for one year, the petitioners shall be entitled to participate in
future projects of MORT&H, as debarment ceased to exist after 29 th
September 2021.
3. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.