Ms Shivneri Construction through Its Prop Sharad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Ms Shivneri Construction through Its Prop Sharad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition entertained only in respect of the challenge to the disqualification (initiation after the defect liability period and alleged denial of proper opportunity of hearing); prayer clause 'C' (restraining recovery) not entertained; notice issued to the respondents, with learned AGP waiving notice for respondent No.1, and notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3 made returnable on 11.03.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's disqualification from tender participation for three years, ordered on 24.09.2025 and confirmed on 09.01.2026 in appeal, is sustainable where, according to the petitioner, the entire exercise was started after the defect liability period and proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner by the authorities. +1 more

Court's answer

The question whether the disqualification proceedings were initiated after the defect liability period and whether proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner can only be considered in the writ petition; the petition is accordingly entertained and restricted to that extent only.

Ratio / Principle

Prayer clause 'C' of the petition, seeking restraint against recovery of the disputed amount, cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where disputed facts have been raised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.) — Writ Petition No.898 of 2026, decided 06 February 2026 — A registered Class IV contractor, having completed work of 4 kilometer Dharmapuri Road and bridge construction under E-Tender (order dated 08.06.2023) with a 24-month defect liability period ending 18.07.2025 (clause No.9 of the work order), challenged (i) his disqualification from tender participation for three years ordered on 24.09.2025 by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Parbhani, and confirmed in appeal on 09.01.2026 by respondent No.2, and (ii) the direction dated 29.10.2025 to pay Rs.27,40,797/-, contending that the proceedings were initiated only after expiry of the defect liability period (notices dated 14.08.2025 and 21.08.2025) and without proper opportunity of hearing. Held: the prayer for restraining recovery of Rs.27,45,467/- (prayer clause 'C') cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where disputed facts have been raised; the writ petition is entertained and restricted solely to the challenge to the disqualification on the grounds of its timing vis-à-vis the defect liability period and denial of hearing. Notice issued; learned AGP waived notice for respondent No.1; notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3 made returnable on 11.03.2026.

923-wp-898-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

923 WRIT PETITION NO.898 OF 2026

Ms Shivneri Construction Through Its Prop Sharad Ratanrao Yadav VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Mr. V. C. Patil h/f Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondents/State.

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 06 FEBRUARY 2026

ORDER :

. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. C. Patil holding for learned Advocate Mr. U. B. Bondar for the petitioner.

The petitioner, who is a registered Class IV contractor, challenges the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the orders dated 24.09.2025 and 29.10.2025 passed by Additional Chief Executive Officer, Parbhani as well as seeks restraining the order against the respondents from recovering an amount of Rs.27,45,467/-. The petitioner had undertaken the work of 4 kilometer Dharmapuri Road and bridge construction and improvement work under E-Tender vide order dated 08.06.2023. According to the petitioner, the work of construction

[1]

923-wp-898-2026.odt

was strictly as per the technical specifications and departmental norms. The Sectional Engineer used to visit the site frequently and inspected the work from time to time. The work was completed on 19.07.2023 and the completion certificate has also been issued by the Executive Engineer on 198.07.2023. According to the petitioner, as per clause No.9 of the work order, the defect liability period was 24 months, which was ended on 18.07.2025, however, after the said period was over, the first notice was issued by the Executive Engineer on 14.08.2025 and the second notice was issued on 21.08.2025 i.e. after the period of defect liability regarding the quality of construction. The reply was given by the petitioner on 22.08.2025, however, the orders came to be passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer on 24.09.2025 disqualifying the petitioner from tender participation for next three years and on 29.10.2025, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.27,40,797/-. Hence, this petition.

After considering the submissions as well as the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the prayer clause ‘C’ cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the disputed facts have been raised. Now, as regards the disqualification of the petitioner ordered on 24.09.2025 and confirmed on 09.01.2026 in the appeal is concerned, the petitioner states that the entire exercise has been started after the defect liability period and proper opportunity of

[2]

923-wp-898-2026.odt

hearing was not given to the petitioner by the authorities. This aspect can only be considered in the writ petition and, therefore, we restrict the petition to this extent only.

Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGP waives notice for respondent No.1. Notice of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is made returnable on 11.03.2026.

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

scm

[3]