Writ challenge to contractual debarment dismissed for prolonged delay while contracted work remained incomplete.

The petitioner, a proprietary construction concern, was awarded work for construction of a Model School at Rampurva, Mainatand, West Champaran, pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender dated 6 July 2018.

A letter of acceptance was issued on 23 October 2018, followed by Agreement No. 156/SBD/2018-19 dated 11 January 2019.

The work, which included construction of the school building and ancillary works such as manual boring, installation of a submersible pump, and water-supply facilities, was required to be completed by 10 April 2020.

The petitioner asserted that it substantially completed the work and handed over the school premises, but that its bills remained unpaid.

It also contended that manual boring could not be completed because of the depth of the water level and the rocky nature of the ground.

The respondents maintained that important ancillary works, including the water-supply arrangements and submersible pump, remained incomplete despite repeated reminders.

A show-cause notice was issued on 6 May 2022 proposing rescission of the agreement and forfeiture of the security deposit.

By order dated 12 May 2022, the petitioner was declared a defaulter and debarred from participating in future tenders until completion of the work.

The writ petition was filed on 6 May 2026, approximately four years after the debarment order and more than six years after the scheduled completion date.

Whether the order dated 12 May 2022 declaring the petitioner a defaulter and debarring it from participating in future tenders was liable to be quashed when the contractual work remained incomplete?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to directions for payment of its outstanding bills and release of the security deposit on the basis that the work had substantially or effectively been completed?

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on account of delay and the petitioner’s continuing failure to complete the contractual work?

The Court applied the contractual terms contained in the Standard Bid Document, particularly Clauses 3(iii), 3(iv), 3(v), and 3(vii)(a), which empowered the respondents to take contractual action, including rescission and forfeiture, in the event of non-performance.

The Court proceeded on the principle that a contractor seeking discretionary writ relief against a debarment or default order must demonstrate compliance with the contractual obligations and cannot claim equitable relief while material work remains incomplete.

It also applied the settled principle that unexplained or substantial delay in invoking writ jurisdiction is a relevant ground for declining relief, particularly where the underlying default is continuing.

The Court found that the contractual work included not merely construction of the school building but also essential ancillary works, including provision of water supply through a tubewell and installation of a submersible pump.

Since these works remained incomplete even after the contractual deadline of 10 April 2020, the petitioner could not establish complete performance of the agreement.

The petitioner’s own correspondence showed that it was still seeking permission or approval to undertake ODEX boring at three to five times the original estimated cost, demonstrating that the agreed work had not been completed.

Although the respondents had requested the petitioner to proceed with ODEX boring, the Court noted that communications continued until January 2024 without completion of the work.

Further, the writ petition was filed only on 6 May 2026, more than six years after the scheduled completion date and nearly four years after the impugned debarment order.

In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the petitioner’s favour.

The Court declined to quash the order dated 12 May 2022 debarring the petitioner from participating in future tenders, and it did not grant directions for immediate payment of the outstanding bills or release of the security deposit.

However, the petitioner was given liberty to approach the respondent authorities for an agreement concerning completion of the balance work, including installation of the submersible pump through ODEX boring, and for consideration of its claim for payment of the remaining amount.

The respondents were directed to decide those claims along with the other pending matters.