Court Emphasizes Real and Live Cause of Action Necessary for Invoking Article 226 Jurisdiction
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court, comprising Justices Sudhir Singh and Shailendra Singh, dismissed a writ petition filed by Aarpee Infra Projects (P) Ltd. The company sought judicial intervention to prevent potential disqualification in tender processes initiated by the Public Health Engineering Department of Bihar. The court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked based on speculative grievances or apprehensions.
Aarpee Infra Projects contended that a debarment order from the Government of West Bengal should not automatically disqualify them from participating in tenders floated by the Bihar Government. The petitioner was concerned that Clause 4.8 of the Instructions to Bidders might be used to extend the debarment order's effect beyond its original scope.
However, the court noted that the petitioner had neither participated in the tenders nor faced any actual disqualification. The tender processes in question were concluded, and the work had been awarded to another bidder, rendering the petitioner's claims academic. The court emphasized that Article 226 jurisdiction requires a real, live, and enforceable cause of action, not hypothetical or speculative scenarios.
The judgment reiterated the principle that the terms of a tender are within the exclusive domain of the tendering authority. Courts should exercise restraint and only intervene if there is arbitrariness, mala fide, or perversity in the decision-making process. The court cited past judgments, including Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., to support its decision.
The court further clarified that a blacklisting or debarment order's applicability is generally confined to the authority issuing it and cannot be extended by other departments without independent assessment. However, such principles are relevant only when an actual decision affects the petitioner, which was not the case here.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining judicial discipline in tender matters, ensuring that court intervention is limited to instances of clear legal injury or rights violations. The decision also highlights the importance of participating in tender processes to establish a valid cause for legal action.
Bottom line:-
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are maintainable only when there exists a real, live, and enforceable cause of action arising from a concluded or imminent administrative action. Speculative or hypothetical grievances cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
