Patna High Court
M/S Gungun Enterprises vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 13 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18501 of 2016
======================================================
M/s Gungun Enterprises, Gangotri Kunj, back of Bhawani Market, Ambedkar
Path, Bailey Road, Patna, through Rina Sinha D/o - Sri Bachan Lal Srivastava
R/v - New Jakkanpur, Mithapur, B - area, P.S. - Jakkanpur, Distt. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Additional Collector, Collectorate, Patna.
4. The Deputy Collector, District Najarat Branch Collectorate, Patna.
5. The Protocal Officer, District Protocol Branch, Patna.
6. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Vijay Kumar Sinha
A.K.Srivastava
S.K.Bhatnagar
K.M.Prasad, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP 14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-05-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the Writ
application for the following reliefs:
"That this writ application is being
filed for issuance of an appropriate
writ or writs commanding/
directing the respondents to
revoke the order dated 16.10.2016
issued by the District Magistrate,
Patna vide letter no.- 531 dated
18.10.2016
by which the tender
allotted to M/s Gungun Enterprises
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
dated 10.06.2016 was cancelled
for supplying of A.C. and Non-A.C.
car for the State guest of District
Protocol Branch, Patna
Collectorate, Patna and further
pleased to quash the letter no,-
531 dated 18.10.2016 issued by
the District Magistrate, Patna
(Annexure-6) of the this petition by
which the work order allotted to
the petitioner was cancelled by the
District Magistrate, Patna."
2. The brief facts culled out of the
petition are that the petitioner is a partner in M/s
Gungun Enterprises, which was registered under
the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 on
01.09.2010 (Registration No. PT68490) with the
Labour Superintendent, Patna, initially registered
as a proprietorship under Manoranjan Kumar Sinha,
the firm was later converted into a partnership
between Manoranjan Kumar Sinha and Smt. Rina
Sinha through a registered partnership deed
executed on 01.12.2015, with both partners
holding a 50% share in capital and profits. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
partnership was formed for conducting business in
the tour and travel sector and other related
services.
3. It is submitted by the petitioner in
the Writ petition that on 05.03.2016, M/s Gungun
Enterprises was awarded a tender by the District
Najarat Branch, Patna Collectorate, for providing
AC and non-AC Tata Indica and Indigo cars. The
District Purchase Committee approved the rates
submitted by the petitioner, and vide letter dated
01.06.2016, the petitioner was directed to present
12 vehicles for verification. No complaints were
received regarding the services rendered, and the
firm continued to operate satisfactorily under the
contract. Subsequently, on 10.06.2016, the District
Protocol Branch, Patna Collectorate, floated a fresh
tender for vehicle supply. The petitioner submitted
its technical and financial bid on the same day. The
bid was accepted, and a work order was issued on
15.06.2016 (Annexure-5) for a period from
13.06.2016 to 12.06.2017. M/s Gungun Enterprises
commenced vehicle supply to the District Protocol
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
Branch, and the services were carried out without
any complaints from officials or guests. However, a
third party, Ritesh Kumar Raj, filed a complaint
alleging that Manoranjan Kumar Sinha, one of the
partners in M/s Gungun Enterprises, was the same
person who previously operated M/s Gangotri Tour
and Travels, which had been blacklisted on
06.09.2005. Acting on this complaint, the District
Magistrate conducted an inquiry and sought
clarification from the Labour Superintendent, who
confirmed the involvement of Manoranjan Kumar
Sinha in both firms. Although Smt. Rina Sinha filed
an affidavit asserting that M/s Gungun Enterprises
was a partnership firm, not a proprietorship, the
District Magistrate cancelled the petitioner's
tender and work order vide letter no. 531 dated
18.10.2016, based on the alleged connection with
the blacklisted firm.
4. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that M/s Gangotri Tour and
Travels never participated in the 2016 tender.
Further, M/s Gungun Enterprises is a legally
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
registered partnership firm run by Smt. Rina Sinha,
and was never blacklisted. It is also submitted that
the cancellation was done without issuing a show-
cause notice, violating the principles of natural
justice and L2 bidder, Super Tour and Travels,
declined to provide services at the rate quoted by
M/s Gungun Enterprises, causing disruption in
services. The entire supply work was handled
efficiently and without complaints, as evident from
the records and annexures. It is further submitted
that the complaint by Ritesh Kumar Raj was
malicious and irrelevant, as he had no connection
with the tender process.
5. In view of these facts, the Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
cancellation of the work order is arbitrary, illegal,
and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. The action of the District
Magistrate, taken without proper inquiry or
hearing, is mala fide, capricious, and unsustainable
in law, and hence liable to be quashed.
6. A detailed counter affidavit was filed
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. It is
averred in the counter affidavit that the writ
petition has been filed seeking revocation of the
order dated 16.10.2016, communicated vide Memo
No. 531 dated 18.10.2016, by which the tender
awarded to M/s Gungun Enterprises for supply of
AC and Non-AC vehicles to the District Protocol
Branch, Patna, was cancelled.
7. It is further contended in the counter
affidavit that a tender had been duly invited for
the supply of vehicles, and M/s Gungun Enterprises
dated 15.06.2016. Subsequently, a complaint from
one Ritesh Kumar Raj alleged that Manoranjan
Kumar Sinha, the proprietor of M/s Gangotri Tour &
Travels, a blacklisted firm (vide Memo No.
100/Naya dated 06.09.2005), was also the
proprietor of M/s Gungun Enterprises. In response
to the complaint, a report was sought from the
Labour Superintendent, Patna, who confirmed that
Manoranjan Kumar Sinha was listed as proprietor
of both firms as per the registration certificate. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
was further pointed out that while the registration
certificate described M/s Gungun Enterprises as a
proprietorship, a separate partnership deed dated
01.12.2015 described it as a partnership firm
between Manoranjan Kumar Sinha and Rina Sinha,
thus creating a contradiction in its legal status.
8. Based on this contradiction, the
District Purchase Committee, in its meeting held on
30.09.2016, recommended cancellation of the
work order, which was accepted and implemented
through the impugned order dated 18.10.2016.
9. The Learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the cancellation was
valid, lawful, and based on the Labour
Superintendent's report and the District Purchase
Committee's recommendation. They also clarify
that the tender naturally lapsed at the end of its
term in 2017, and no further representation or
participation was made by the petitioner in
subsequent tenders.
10. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit
was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
on behalf of the petitioner that M/s Gangotri Tour
and Travels was blacklisted vide Letter No. 100
dated 06.09.2005 (Annexure-A of the counter
affidavit), but there exists a limitation period for
blacklisting, which was not adhered to by the
authorities. In support, the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1083 of 2022 dated 24.02.2022
(Annexure-7), which lays down that blacklisting
must be time-bound and not indefinite. Further,
with reference to paragraph 7 of the counter
affidavit, the petitioner contends that the District
Purchase Committee cancelled the tender
allotment vide Memo No. 531 dated 18.10.2016
(Annexure-C) without issuing a show cause notice
or affording an opportunity of hearing, and without
settling the petitioner's accounts, which renders
the cancellation arbitrary and illegal. Regarding
paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, wherein the
respondents stated that the tender lapsed at the
end of the year 2016 and that the petitioner did
not participate in subsequent tenders, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
petitioner asserts that the cancellation of the
tender without due process left no scope or
justification to participate in future tenders. The
petitioner emphasizes that officials cannot
unilaterally publish new tenders without settling
the previous contract or hearing the aggrieved
party. The cancellation based on the past
blacklisting of M/s Gangotri Tour and Travels, with
which the petitioner shares a partner only, cannot
be used to disqualify the distinct partnership firm,
M/s Gungun Enterprises.
11. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the counter affidavit
appears to be an attempt by the respondents to
justify an illegal and unjust action, and reiterates
that the cancellation of the tender was in violation
of the principles of natural justice and is not
sustainable in law
12. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner and the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
13. From perusal of the records of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
case it appears that the tender was opened and
work was allotted to the petitioner vide order
dated 15.06.2016 for a period of one year. Upon
complaint received from One Ritesh Kumar,
claiming that proprietor of M/s Gungun Enterprises
is the same person as of M/s Gangotri Tour & Travel
and M/s Gangotri Tour & Travel was blacklisted by
the respondent by Annexure-A. A report was called
for from the Labour Superintendent, Patna. In
report (Annexure-B) submitted by the Labour
Superintendent, Patna stating therein that the
proprietor of both M/s Gungun Enterprises and M/s
Gangotri Tour & Travel was the same person i.e.
Manoranjan Kumar Sinha. The Registration
certificate showing it proprietorship firm whereas
partnership deed shows that it is a partnership firm
and both the registration certificate and
partnership deed are contradictory to each other.
Upon the report, a meeting of District Purchase
Committee was held on 30.09.2016 and
recommended for cancellation of the said tender
allotted to the petitioner vide order contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
Memo No. 531 dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure-C). It is
further important to note that the tender lapses
at the end of every year and in this case the same
was ended in the year 2016, post which
subsequent tenders were held where the petitioner
never appeared or made any submission regarding
eligibility for participation.
14. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon a judgment dated
19.05.2023 passed in CWJC No. 3456 of 2021 by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. After perusal of
the ratio decided in the CWJC No. 3456 of 2021,
this Court found that the same did not apply in this
case. Further the petitioner relied on the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.
1083 of 2022 dated 24.2.2022. The same is also
not helpful the petitioner.
15. In support of submission of
respondents, the Learned counsel for the
respondents placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered in (2008) 12 SCC 500 (Kisan Sahkari
Chini Mills Limited & Ors. Vs. Vardan Linkers
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
& Ors.) (paragraph No.s 28 and 23 and also
judgment reported in (2015) 13 SCC 233 (Rishi
Kiran Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees
of Kandla Port Trust & Ors.) (paragraph 37 and
38).
16. It would be apposite to reproduce
para 18 and 23 of the judgment reported in Kisan
Sahkari Chini Mills Limited (supra) which is as
under:
"18. Ordinarily, the remedy
available for a party complaining of
breach of contract lies for seeking
damages. He will be entitled to the relief
of specific performance, if the contract is
capable of being specifically enforced in
law. The remedies for a breach of
contract being purely in the realm of
contract are dealt with by civil courts.
The public law remedy, by way of a writ
petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is not available to
seek damages for breach of contract or
specific performance of contract.
However, where the contractual dispute
has a public law element, the power of
judicial review under Article 226 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
Constitution of India may be invoked."
23. If the dispute was
considered as purely one relating to
existence of an agreement, that is,
whether there was a concluded contract
and whether the cancellation and
consequential non-supply amounted to
breach of such contract, the first
respondent ought to have approached
the civil court for damages. On the other
hand, when a writ petition was filed in
regard to the said contractual dispute,
the issue was whether the Secretary
(Sugar), had acted arbitrarily or
unreasonably in staying the operation of
the allotment letter dated 26-3-2004 or
subsequently cancelling the allotment
letter. In a civil suit, the emphasis is on
the contractual right. In a writ petition,
the focus shifts to the exercise of power
by the authority, that is, whether the
order of cancellation dated 24-4-2004
passed by the Secretary (Sugar), was
arbitrary or unreasonable. The issue
whether there was a concluded contract
and breach thereof becomes secondary.
In exercising writ jurisdiction, if the High
Court found that the exercise of power in
passing an order of cancellation was not
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
arbitrary and unreasonable, it should
normally desist from giving any finding
on disputed or complicated questions of
fact as to whether there was a contract,
and relegate the petitioner to the
remedy of a civil suit. Even in cases
where the High Court finds that there is a
valid contract, if the impugned
administrative action by which the
contract is cancelled, is not
unreasonable or arbitrary, it should still
refuse to interfere with the same, leaving
the aggrieved party to work out his
remedies in a civil court. In other words,
when there is a contractual dispute with
a public law element, and a party
chooses the public law remedy by way of
a writ petition instead of a private law
remedy of a suit, he will not get a full-
fledged adjudication of his contractual
rights, but only a judicial review of the
administrative action. The question
whether there was a contract and
whether there was a breach may,
however, be examined incidentally while
considering the reasonableness of the
administrative action. But where the
question whether there was a contract, is
seriously disputed, the High Court cannot
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
assume that there was a valid contract
and on that basis, examine the validity of
the administrative action."
17. In Rishi Kiran Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
paragrpah 37 and 38 as follows:
"37. The questions before
the Supreme Court in Kisan Sahkari
Chini Mills Ltd. case [(2008) 12 SCC
500] were: (i) Whether the High Court
was right in concluding/assuming that
there was a valid contract? and (ii)
Whether the High Court was justified in
quashing the order of the Secretary
(Sugar)? This Court answered the
aforesaid questions in the negative and
set aside the judgment of the High
Court holding that: (SCC pp. 501-02)
"Ordinarily, the remedy
available for a party complaining of
breach of contract lies for seeking
damages. He would be entitled to
the relief of specific performance, if
the contract was capable of being
specifically enforced in law. The
remedies for a breach of contract
being purely in the realm of
contract are dealt with by civil
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
courts. The public law remedy, by
way of a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution, is not
available to seek damages for
breach of contract or specific
performance of contract. However,
where the contractual dispute has a
public law element, the power of
judicial review under Article 226
may be invoked."
It is clear that the aforesaid
case is closest to the facts of the
present case
38. It thus stands
crystallised that by way of writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
only public law remedy can be invoked.
As far as contractual dispute is
concerned that is outside the power of
judicial review under Article 226 with
the sole exception in those cases where
such a contractual dispute has a public
law element."
18. In light of the aforesaid judgments,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " It thus
stands crystallised that by way of writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution, only public
Patna High Court CWJC No.18501 of 2016 dt.13-05-2025
law remedy can be invoked. As far as contractual
dispute is concerned that is outside the power of
judicial review under Article 226 with the sole
exception in those cases where such a contractual
dispute has a public law element. Admittedly, the
Writ petition is not filed for challenging the
blacklisting of the partner of the petitioner.
19. The outcome of the aforesaid
discussion would be to hold that there is no merit
in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
20. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.05.2025
Transmission Date
