The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that when the period of debarment/cancellation in an administrative order has already expired by the time of hearing, a writ petition seeking relief against such order becomes infructuous. This order is consistent with established jurisprudence and has binding value for similar writs concerning expired prohibitions, particularly in government contracting and tender processes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/36468/2015 of M/s. Kayvees Bakes N Drinks Vs The General Manager |
| CNR | HCMD010947442015 |
| Date of Registration | 06-11-2015 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge – Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction; can be cited to support dismissal on grounds of infructuousness |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law; Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of a debarment order survives once the debarment period expires. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that since the period of debarment imposed on the petitioner had expired, no useful purpose would be served in adjudicating the writ petition, rendering it infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged cancellation of contract and one-year debarment from future bidding/contract for railway tenders. By the time the matter was taken up, the debarment period had expired. There was no appearance for the petitioner at the hearing. The writ petition was therefore dismissed as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiteration that writ petitions challenging consequences of executive orders which have expired become infructuous and are liable to be dismissed as such.
- A petitioner’s absence or non-prosecution is not necessary where the relief is rendered moot by efflux of time; the court may dismiss on the ground of infructuousness sua sponte.
- Reinforces the necessity for prompt prosecution and listing of writ petitions involving time-bound prohibitions, bans, or debarments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first noted the absence of representation for the petitioner on the date of hearing.
- It then observed that the challenge was to an order cancelling contract and debarment from future contracts for a period of one year.
- The court explicitly recorded that the debarment period had already expired by the time of hearing.
- Citing this status, the court concluded that there was nothing surviving in the writ petition for adjudication.
- On this basis, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, without entering into merits or granting costs.
- All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- No appearance recorded.
Respondents:
- No arguments recorded in the order.
Factual Background
The petitioner, M/s Kayvee’s Bakes ’N’ Drinks, was aggrieved by an order of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, cancelling their contract for running the Vegetarian Light Refreshment Room at Karaikudi Railway Station and debarred them from participating in future railway tenders for one year. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court under Article 226, seeking quashing of this order and return of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). However, by the date of hearing, the one-year debarment had already lapsed and there was no appearance for the petitioner.
Statutory Analysis
- The order was passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- The judgment does not refer to or interpret any specific statutory provisions other than the invocation of writ jurisdiction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this single-judge order.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were articulated in the order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing law regarding maintainability of writ petitions rendered infructuous by expiry of the impugned period.