The Patna High Court has reiterated that the validity of an administrative or executive action is to be adjudged based on the facts and materials which were available at the time when such a decision was taken, and subsequent developments cannot be relied upon to validate or invalidate such an action.

The High Court was considering a petition whereby the petitioner was challenging the disqualification from the tender process.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh stated, “It is a settled principle of law that the validity of an administrative or executive action is to be adjudged on the basis of the facts and materials which were available at the time when such decision was taken. Subsequent developments cannot ordinarily be relied upon to either validate or invalidate an action which was otherwise lawful on the date of its issuance.”

Advocate Prabhat Ranjan represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Amish Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Departmental Tender Committee, on May 5, 2025, had given a decision declaring the technical bid and financial bid of the petitioner as non-responsive, with a further direction to award the work to one M/s. Maa Laxmi Construction for 17.5% below the scheduled rate. The decision was based upon a letter in which the respondent authorities had indicated that out of 10 ongoing projects, 8 projects attributed to the petitioner had not been completed. The said communication was challenged by the petitioner, whereby the matter was remanded to the concerned authority. Challenging the authority’s decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioner that since the issue relating to the alleged 8 pending projects was subject matter of consideration before the Appellate Authority and interim protection had been granted in favor of the petitioner, the respondents were not justified in issuing Memo No. 448(Mo) disqualifying the petitioner.

The respondents contended that, as per the fresh decision dated December 11, 2025, 8 projects remained incomplete, thereby justifying their action.

Reasoning

The Bench reiterated that in matters relating to the award of contracts, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited.

The Bench noticed that on the date of issuance of Memo No. 448 dated May 5, 2025, the communication dated April 12, 2025, was in existence and formed the basis of the impugned decision. “The subsequent setting aside of the said communication and remand of the matter would not, by itself, render the earlier decision illegal by putting the clock back. More so, when upon reconsideration, the competent authority, vide order dated 11.12.2025, has again recorded that 08 ongoing projects attributed to the petitioner remained incomplete”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the subsequent order of the Appellate Authority dated March 17, 2026, could not be given retrospective effect to invalidate the decision dated May 5, 2025, which was otherwise based on the materials available at the relevant point of time.

Finding no merit in the writ application, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Ramesh Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar (Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8949 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order





Patna High CourtJustice Sudhir SinghJustice Shailendra Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.