Court holds that the right to a hearing under natural justice may not arise where foundational eligibility criteria are objectively unmet; reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedents that natural justice is not a universal right in all administrative or quasi-judicial actions concerning tenders. Judgment is binding within the State’s jurisdiction and carries persuasive value elsewhere for similar factual matrices, with specific relevance to public works and government procurement sectors.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWJC/2376/2025 of M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Bihar |
| CNR | BRHC010130252025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Bihar; Persuasive authority for similar cases elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s ratio in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India (2010) 10 SCC 744 |
| Type of Law | Public law – Government contracts, administrative law, tender process |
| Questions of Law | Is compliance with principles of natural justice, such as show cause notice or hearing, mandatory where objective eligibility criteria in a public tender are not satisfied? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the application of principles of natural justice depends on the facts, the governing statute or rules, and whether non-compliance leads to prejudice. Where the disqualification is based on objective, documentary grounds (such as lack of requisite experience specifically called for in a tender), issuing a notice or hearing may not provide the petitioner with a meaningful opportunity to alter the core deficiency. The judgment emphasizes that natural justice is not a doctrinaire concept and cannot be elevated into a universal requirement in the realm of tender evaluation. The guiding Supreme Court precedents do not mandate a hearing where the eligibility defect is non-curable and arises from unalterable factual materials. In the present context, petitioner’s inability to show requisite experience of constructing guest house independent of residential conversion was fatal, and principles of natural justice were not violated. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The principle of natural justice is not of universal application; its invocation depends on legislative intent, nature of the right, and facts. Where eligibility is factually determined and non-curable, principles may not apply. Supreme Court guidance in CCI v. SAIL (2010) 10 SCC 744 emphasized such contextual application. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s technical bid was initially found responsive, but after complaints, a re-evaluation determined petitioner lacked independent experience in constructing a guest house as required by the tender. The author of petitioner’s experience certificate confirmed petitioner had only built residential flats later converted to a guest house, not an independent guest house. |
| Citations | (2007) 14 SCC 517; (1994) 6 SCC 651; (1985) 3 SCC 267; (2021) 19 SCC 706; (2010) 10 SCC 744 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Bihar |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; argumentatively before the Supreme Court and in other State jurisdictions |
| Follows | Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India (2010) 10 SCC 744 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates discretionary, fact-dependent nature of applying principles of natural justice in tender eligibility disputes.
- Clarifies that where factual eligibility defects (such as lack of independent requisite experience) are decisive and unimprovable, absence of notice or hearing is not necessarily a violation of natural justice.
- Affirms that objection-based disqualification of bidders, after inquiry with the certifying authority, will not attract natural justice protections if no prejudice or curable defect exists.
- Lawyers should carefully distinguish between curable and incurable disqualifications when advancing natural justice arguments in tender or contract litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified the principal issue as whether the petitioner’s exclusion for lack of independent experience in constructing guest houses warranted relief on grounds of natural justice.
- After reviewing the factual matrix, including objections raised by other bidders and a political person, the Court noted the matter was investigated by consulting the author of the experience certificate, who confirmed that the petitioner’s work was only conversion of residential flats, not construction of a guest house.
- The Court referenced Supreme Court precedents, especially Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India (2010) 10 SCC 744, which classifies when and how natural justice applies depending on context, facts, and nature of right affected.
- The Court distinguished each of the four decisions cited by the petitioner, noting they do not require application of natural justice where the defect is fatal and could not be cured by a response.
- On the facts, since petitioner could not adduce any new material to cure the eligibility deficiency, no prejudice resulted from lack of notice or hearing.
- The complaint by a political person was not the basis for exclusion; disqualification was rooted in undisputed, objective deficiencies.
- The judicial review power in tender matters is narrow, especially when eligibility is a question of fact rather than discretion.
- The writ petition was dismissed as the relief was found to be without merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Impugned decision was taken ex parte and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the objections received.
- Alleged reliance by the respondent authority on objection from a political person amounted to consideration of extraneous and irrelevant factors.
- Cited Supreme Court decisions to argue that principles of natural justice required being heard before disqualification.
Respondent/State
- Petitioner’s eligibility was reconsidered after receiving objections from bidders and a political person regarding lack of requisite guest house construction experience.
- Upon reference, the author of the petitioner’s experience certificate clarified that the petitioner had not independently constructed a guest house but only converted residential buildings/flats.
- Principle of natural justice is not automatically applicable where the defect is unimprovable; cited Supreme Court precedent in CCI v. SAIL (2010) on context-dependent application.
Respondent No. 6
- Asserted that petitioner had produced a fake completion certificate; although not found fake, it was confirmed that the work did not meet the eligibility criterion.
Factual Background
Petitioner participated in the tender for construction of Rajendra Bhawan Guest House, Patna, fulfilling initial technical requirements. After pre-bid objections regarding experience criteria and re-evaluation of technical qualifications, the petitioner’s bid, initially found responsive, was declared non-responsive on discovery that petitioner lacked requisite independent experience in constructing guest houses. The decision was based on clarifications from the author of the experience certificate and not solely on objections from a political person.
Statutory Analysis
The Court examined the tender conditions requiring independent experience of guest house construction. It interpreted the requirement strictly, finding that petitioner’s experience converting residential flats into a guest house did not meet the stipulated criterion. The Court further analyzed the application of the principles of natural justice with reference to judicial precedents, highlighting the distinction between cases mandating strict compliance and those where prejudice is essential before interference.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded; the judgment was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were announced in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517
- Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651
- Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706
- Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India, (2010) 10 SCC 744