Debarment cannot operate indefinitely once the underlying contractual default is cured and work is successfully completed.

The petitioner, M/s R.S. Construction, was awarded a contract for building a 5000 MT godown in Jamui and due to delays in execution, the Executive Engineer issued an order dated 29.03.2025 debarring the petitioner from participating in the "immediately succeeding tender".

The petitioner completed the work to the respondents' satisfaction, and a work experience certificate was issued on 17.07.2025.

Despite this completion, when the petitioner bid for a new tender (NIT No. 01/SBD/2025-26), the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee rejected their bid on 25.09.2025, citing the earlier debarment order.

During the pendency of the writ, the contract was awarded to a third party, leading the petitioner to confine their plea to declaring the debarment order inoperative following the completion of work.

The Court primarily applied the principles of administrative law and the doctrine of proportionality as articulated by the Supreme Court of India in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL (2014); the rule establishes that while the power to debar is inherent in authorities, it is subject to judicial review on the touchstone of natural justice and proportionality.

Debarment cannot be permanent or for an indefinite period; it must be for a fixed duration and bear a reasonable nexus to the gravity of the default.

The Court observed that the original debarment order dated 29.03.2025 was conspicuously silent regarding its duration or the conditions for its cessation.

The Court found that the authorities continued to rely on it even after the petitioner had cured the default by completing the project and receiving a certificate of satisfaction on 17.07.2025.

Applying Kulja Industries, the Court reasoned that once the contractual obligations were fulfilled and accepted, the "very basis" of the debarment ceased to exist.

In the absence of a fresh order justifying further exclusion, the debarment effectively assumed an "indefinite" character, which is legally unsustainable and arbitrary.

The High Court set aside the debarment order dated 29.03.2025 and allowed the writ petition to that extent.