Sri Balajee Enterprises Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Balajee Enterprises Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the expectation that the necessary decision regarding post-facto extension of time be taken by the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee (the process being clearly delineated) and that a necessary denotification order of debarment be made, within a period of eight weeks; interlocutory application(s), if any, also disposed of accordingly

Issue for consideration

Whether the Superintending Engineer of the Department is competent to grant post-facto extension of time, or whether such extension has to be given by the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee +1 more

Court's answer

Since extension of time has already been allowed by the Superintending Engineer of the Department, the necessary decision regarding post-facto extension of time shall be taken by the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee, for which the process is clearly delineated

Ratio / Principle

Necessary denotification order of debarment shall also be made

Key takeaways

The decision regarding post-facto extension of time and denotification of debarment is to be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of the judgmentratio¶8
Considering the stand of the State, the Court has no apprehension that such sequel action shall not be taken by the Governmentobiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ and Partha Sarthy, J; judgment per the Acting Chief Justice) disposed of CWJC No. 7159 of 2024 filed by a contractor (Sri Balajee Enterprises through its Proprietor Kunal Pandey). The petitioner had bagged a contract as the successful bidder, but owing to several extensions of time required in completing the work he was debarred for the period the work was completed; his services were nevertheless taken and the work now stands completed. The respondents' stand was that extension of time had been allowed retrospectively by the Superintending Engineer; the petitioner contended that the Superintending Engineer was not competent to grant post-facto extension, which had to be given by the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee, failing which it would be difficult to claim payment for work done, and that the debarment order, having lost its force, required denotification. Noting that extension of time had already been allowed by the Superintending Engineer, the Court expected the necessary decision regarding post-facto extension of time to be taken by the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee, for which the process is clearly delineated, and the necessary denotification order of debarment to be made; it expressed no apprehension that such sequel action would not be taken by the Government and directed that the decision be taken within eight weeks. The writ petition and any interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly. The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner's contention on the Superintending Engineer's competency.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7159 of 2024

======================================================

Sri Balajee Enterprises, having its Registered Office at 14, Narayan Niwas, Road No. 2, Friends Colony, Ashiana Digha Road, Patna through its Proprietor Kunal Pandey, aged about 47 years, Male, son of Sri Maheshwar Pandey, resident of village Semariya, P.S. Barhara, District Bhojpur, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Engineer in Chief cum Additinal Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Chief Engineer, North, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Chapra, Bihar.

The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Chapra (Saran), Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate 13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 13-02-2025

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner though had bagged the

contract as being the successful bidder, but because of

several extensions of time required in completing the

work, the petitioner was debarred for the period that the

work was completed. Nonetheless, the services of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7159 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025 2/3

petitioner was taken and now the work has been completed.

The stand of the respondents is that the extension of time has been allowed retrospectively by the

Superintending Engineer of the Department.

The contention raised on behalf of the

petitioner is that the Superintending Engineer of the Department is not competent to give any extension postfacto, which extension has to be given by the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee, failing which it would be difficult for the petitioner to even claim for payment of the work done by him.

The debarment order also has lost its force, which also, according to the petitioner, requires to be denotified, lest it would always be an impediment in the petitioner applying as a bidder in any of the Government

contracts.

Since extension of time has already been

allowed by the Superintending Engineer of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7159 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025 3/3

Department, it is expected that necessary decision regarding post-facto extension of time shall be taken by the Departmental Tender Evaluation Committee for which

the process is clearly delineated and necessary denotification order of debarment also shall be made.

Considering the stand of the State, we have

no apprehension that such sequel action shall not be taken by the Government.

It would be appropriate if a decision in that regard is taken within a period of eight weeks from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of

accordingly.

Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Sauravkrsinha/ Praveen-II-

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	17.02.2025
Transmission Date	NA