Constructive Res Judicata Bars Challenges to Tender Eligibility Not Raised in Previous Writ Proceedings

The petitioner (M/S Gauripur Coop Fishery) and Respondent No. 8 (M/S Geramari GP MSS Ltd.) both bid for the settlement of "Group No.1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part-I and Satkuri Nadi Fishery" for a 7-year term.

Respondent No. 8 was initially offered the settlement, but the petitioner challenged this in previous litigation (WP(C) No. 6885/2022), arguing that Respondent No. 8’s Bakijai Clearance Certificate was incorrectly issued in the name of its Secretary rather than the Society itself.

In a parallel proceeding (WP(C) No. 7056/2022), the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to issue a corrected certificate, ruling the error was a "curable defect".

Consequently, the Fishery Department issued a fresh order on 15.11.2022 settling the fishery with Respondent No. 8.

The petitioner filed the current writ petition challenging this order and raising new objections regarding the cancellation of Respondent No. 8's Distance Certificate.

1. Whether the principle of constructive res judicata bars the petitioner from challenging Respondent No. 8's Distance Certificate in the current proceedings if it was not raised in previous litigation.

2. Whether the corrected Bakijai Clearance Certificate dated 10.11.2022 could legally be considered for the tender process.

The Court applied the principle of constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which stipulates that any matter that "might and ought" to have been made a ground of attack in a former suit is deemed to have been directly in issue.

It relied on Shiv Chander More v. Lieutenant Governor (2014) 11 SCC 744, affirming that res judicata applies to writ proceedings under Article 226 to ensure finality and prevent a party from being "vexed twice for the same cause".

The Court also upheld the doctrine of curable defects in administrative law, as established in the coordinate bench's prior order regarding the Bakijai Certificate.

Regarding Issue 1, the Court found that the petitioner was aware of the alleged cancellation of Respondent No. 8’s Distance Certificate (dated 23.06.2020) during the first round of litigation in 2022 but failed to raise it.

Applying Shiv Chander More, the Court reasoned that because the petitioner "might and ought" to have raised this ground in WP(C) No. 6885/2022, they are now precluded from doing so under constructive res judicata.

Regarding Issue 2, the Court noted that a coordinate bench had already judicially determined on 11.11.2022 that the incorrect Bakijai certificate was a mistake by authorities and its subsequent correction was a "curable defect".

Since this ruling was affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No. 361/2022, the Court held it could not be re-adjudicated.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merit.