Debarment is unsustainable where mandatory Director General approval under applicable MoRTH guidelines was not obtained.

The petitioner was awarded three works under the Karimganj NH Division and claimed to have completed them successfully, with completion certificates issued.

Following a visit by the Union Minister of State for Road Transport and Highways, concerns were raised regarding the condition of certain road stretches.

Samples collected on 27.03.2026 were reportedly tested, and a report forwarded by the Assam Engineering College Consultancy Cell alleged deficiency in binder content.

The petitioner’s request for duplicate samples for independent testing was declined.

The petitioner nevertheless obtained an independent test report from an NABL-accredited laboratory dated 30.05.2026, which stated that the binder content complied with the prescribed specifications, and submitted it with a representation dated 05.06.2026.

A show-cause notice was issued on 09.06.2026, to which the petitioner replied on 13.06.2026.

After a personal hearing on 20.06.2026, the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH) Works, Assam, passed an order debarring the petitioner from participating in ongoing or future tenders for one year.

The petitioner challenged the debarment order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

During the proceedings, the petitioner also placed on record a consequential order dated 01.08.2026 suspending its registration.

1. Whether the debarment order dated 20.06.2026 was invalid because it was passed without complying with the applicable Ministry of Road Transport and Highways guidelines, particularly the requirement of approval by the Director General (RD) and Special Secretary.

2. Whether the consequential registration-suspension order dated 01.08.2026 could be considered and set aside in the pending writ proceedings through an additional affidavit.

3. Whether the respondents could be permitted to take fresh action against the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.

The Court applied the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways guidelines communicated on 23.02.2018, including Clause 8, under which State PWDs were required to evaluate bids up to ₹5 crores in accordance with the Ministry’s extant guidelines.

It also applied the communication dated 06.10.2021, particularly Sl. No. 5, which contemplated debarment for failure to complete rectification until such rectification was carried out, and paragraph 6, which required approval of the Director General (RD) and Special Secretary for action concerning National Highway works.

The governing administrative-law principle was that an authority must comply with mandatory procedural requirements and prescribed decision-making safeguards.

The Court also relied on Sri-La Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidi v. State of Madras & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1578, for the proposition that connected facts may be brought on record by an additional affidavit in writ proceedings.

The Court declined to examine the competing technical reports or enter into the merits of the alleged binder-content deficiency, observing that the scope of review was limited and that the decision-making process itself was defective.

The applicable Ministry guidelines required approval from the Director General (RD) and Special Secretary before such action could be taken.

Although the petitioner had specifically challenged the absence of this approval, the respondents produced no material demonstrating that the mandatory approval had been obtained; the State counsel also fairly acknowledged that the record did not establish compliance with paragraph 6.

Accordingly, irrespective of whether the petitioner had received notice and a personal hearing, the debarment order could not be sustained because the prescribed decision-making procedure had not been followed.

The Court further held that the registration-suspension order dated 01.08.2026 was merely consequential to the impugned debarment order and could therefore be considered through the additional affidavit and set aside along with the principal order.

The debarment order dated 20.06.2026 was set aside as unsustainable for non-compliance with the applicable Ministry guidelines, particularly the requirement of approval by the Director General (RD) and Special Secretary.

The consequential registration-suspension order dated 01.08.2026 was also set aside.

The respondents were granted liberty to take appropriate action afresh, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable guidelines.

Any fresh action was required to consider the prescription that debarment could continue only until the requisite rectification was completed, rather than automatically imposing a fixed one-year period.