The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Aarpee Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., holding that courts cannot intervene on the basis of a mere apprehension when no actual disqualification or adverse decision has been taken by the authorities.
A Division Bench observed that the company had not even participated in the tender process despite interim protection granted earlier by the Court.
Background of the Case
The matter arose after Aarpee Infra Projects challenged possible disqualification from two Bihar Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) tenders related to piped water supply schemes in Madhubani and Araria districts. The tenders involved were NIT No. 06/2025-26 (LoT/PRD) for Madhubani and NIT No. Re1_09/2025-26 for Araria.
The company argued that a debarment order issued against it by the Government of West Bengal in January 2024 was limited only to tenders floated by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and its implementing agencies. According to the petitioner, that order could not automatically be applied to Bihar PHED tenders.
The petitioner relied on earlier judgments, including Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board, to argue that blacklisting by one authority does not automatically operate against all government departments.
Court’s Observation
The Bench comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh noted that the writ petition was based only on a “misapprehension” because no authority had actually disqualified the company from the tender process.
The Court pointed out that the petitioner had not submitted bids in the tender process at all, even after interim protection was granted on September 4, 2025.
“The grievance remains contingent upon a future possible event,” the Bench observed while holding that there was no “live cause of action” for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The judges further reiterated that judicial review in tender matters is limited and courts should not rewrite tender conditions. Referring to Supreme Court rulings including Tata Cellular, Michigan Rubber, and Afcons Infrastructure, the Bench stressed that interpretation of tender conditions primarily falls within the authority of the tendering body.
The Court clarified that the issue regarding the effect of a blacklisting or debarment order could be examined only if an actual decision affecting the petitioner was taken by the authorities. Since no such decision had been taken by Bihar PHED, the petitioner’s challenge was considered premature.
Decision
Dismissing the plea, the High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because it was founded on speculation rather than any concluded administrative action.
The Bench concluded that no legal injury had yet arisen against the petitioner.
Case Details:
Case Title: Aarpee Infra Projects (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13104 of 2025
Judges: Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh
Decision Date: April 28, 2026
