Allowed

Shiv Security Services (Registered) v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Mar 2026CWJC/604/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court allowed a writ petition quashing a memo cancelling a government outsourcing tender/work order. The court held that the cancellation was arbitrary, lacked specific reasons, and violated natural justice. The matter was remitted to the authority for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed; impugned order (Memo No.3246) set aside; matter remitted to authority to reconsider and pass fresh order after hearing.

Shiv Security Services (Registered) Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.604 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Shiv Security Services (Registered) A partnership firm having its head office at D-184, 1st Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008, through its authorized signatory Shivesh Kumar Singh, Gender- Male, Aged about- 48 Years, Son of Jitendra Narayan Singh, Resident of Ward No. 10, TFT Colony, Valmiki Nagar, Post Office- Valmiki Nagar, Police Station- Valmiki Nagar, District- West Champaran, (Bihar)- 845107.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Assistant Inspector General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police Swabhiman Battalion Bihar Sardar Patel Bhawan Nehru Marg, Patna.

¶7

The Directorate of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police, Swabhiman Battalion, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar.

¶8

The Assistant Inspector General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police, Swabhiman Battalion, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Nehru Marg, Patna, Bihar.

¶9

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Special Armed Police, Swabhiman Battalion, Collectariat Compound, Company Bagh, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶10

The Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police Swabhiman Batallion, Valmiki Nagar, West Champaran.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (05)

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

¶17

3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The present writ application has been filed for

¶19

quashing of the order contained in Memo No.3246 dated 13.12.2025, issued under the signature of the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police Swabhiman Battalion, Valmiki

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.604 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 2/6

¶21

Nagar, West Champaran, whereby the petitioner’s selection pursuant to NIT No.02/2025/26, for supply of Cook, Water Boy, Sweeper and Washer-man on an outsourcing basis has been cancelled without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without assigning any reason.

¶22

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pursuant to NIT No. 02/2025-26 dated 18.06.2025 issued by the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police Swabhiman Battalion, Valmiki Nagar for outsourcing services of Cook, Water Boy, Sweeper and Washerman for three years, the petitioner participated in the tender process and was declared successful after being found L-1 in the financial bid. Consequently, an agreement was executed on 26.07.2025 and work order was issued on 29.07.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner started supplying manpower and submitted bills duly certified by the office of the Commandant. Subsequently, on the basis of a complaint, an inquiry was conducted and thereafter the work order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the work order issued in favour of the petitioner, he had already proceeded with the work. However, in the midst of execution of the work the same has been cancelled by the

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.604 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 3/6

¶25

impugned order contained in Memo No.3246 dated 13.12.2025, without assigning any reason or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the sudden cancellation of the work order has caused serious prejudice, financial loss, and irreparable injury to the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the state submits that certain irregularities were pointed out in the tender process, and therefore the present tender process was cancelled. In this regard, learned counsel for the state has referred to paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, which is reproduced as under:

¶27

“18. That in reply to paragraph No. 16, it is stated that the same relates to the decision of the Directorate dated 09.12.2025 directing the DIG of the Batalion to cancel the tender in question as there are discrepancies in the selection of the agency. It is stated that the DIG of the Battalion, North Division, Muzafarpur under his Memo No. 646 dated 18.10.2025 had pointed out irregularities in the tender process carried out at the local level and had suggested cancelling the tender. The same is selfexhaustive.”

¶28

The relevant part of impugned order contained in Memo No.3246 dated 13.12.2025, issued under the signature of

¶29

the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police Swabhiman Battalion, Valmiki Nagar, is reproduced as under:

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.604 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 4/6

¶31

“ izdkf”kr fufonk ds foRrh; izfdz;k esa vkosnd }kjk ifjokn i= esa ntZ djk;h xbZ vkifRr ,oa dkxtks ds laca/k esa Hkonh; }kjk tkWap ds dze esa mDr fofRr; izfdz;k esa ik;h xbZ dbZ =qfV;ksa ds laca/k esa fcgkj fo”ks’k l”kL= iqfyl funs”kky;] iVuk ds izklafxd i= ds }kjk foLrr leh{kksijkUr izdkf”kr fufonk la0&02@2025&26 dks jí djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS rnuqlkj Hkonh; dk;kZy; ds mi;qZDr izklafxd i= ds }kjk fufonk la0&02@2025&26 dks jí djus laca/kh dkjZokbZ djrs gq, dr dkjZokbZ ls lacaf/kr izfrosnu miyC/k djkus dk vkns”k izkIr gqvk gSA ”

¶32

From the perusal of order dated 13.12.2025, it appears that tender was cancelled in midst of the execution of work without assigning any reason or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is apparent that a vague statement regarding certain irregularities in the tender process was made the ground for cancellation of tender. A mere reference to “irregularity”, in the absence of any cogent or specific reason cannot be treated as a valid ground for cancelling the tender as well as already issued work order. Such action taken during the subsistence of the agreement and while the work was already under execution, is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶33

It is a settled position of law that any administrative decision affecting the rights of the parties/contractors must follow a fair procedure of law. In the present case, fair

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.604 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 5/6

¶35

procedure has not been followed, neither any specific defects have been pointed out, nor any reason has been assigned for cancellation of tender, and the issued work order. At this juncture it is pertinent to take note of judgment rendered in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India , reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 , wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:

¶36

“19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias.

¶37

No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution.”

¶38

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the discussions made above the order under challenge contained in Memo No.3246 dated 13.12.2025 is set aside.

¶39

The matter is remitted back to the concerned authority to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, including personal hearings, if required, within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of any

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.604 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 6/6

¶41

application for reconsideration by the petitioner.

¶42

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the

¶43

present writ application stands disposed of.

¶44

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶45

disposed of.

¶46

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶47

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

¶48

Ritik/-

¶49

Shiv Security Services (Registered) v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Security Services (Registered) v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raushan Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Esepl Group, a partnership firm, Vs The State of Bihar

Renu Devi Vs The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

Mahesh Thakur Vs Sima Thakur

Shivam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rina Singh Vs The State of Bihar