In a pivotal judgment, the Jharkhand High Court has clarified the scope of writ courts under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that such courts are not the appropriate forum for assessing damages, which requires a detailed adjudication process. This decision came in the case of M/s. Deepak Construction vs. The State of Jharkhand, where the petitioner sought compensation for being unjustly debarred from a government tender process.
Case Background
The case, W.P.(C) No. 7229 of 2023, involved M/s. Deepak Construction, led by proprietor Deepak Kumar Mehta. The company was barred from participating in a tender by the Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation due to its alleged involvement in a criminal case (Hazaribagh P.S. Case No. 339 of 2021). Despite a police report clearing the company of any wrongdoing, the debarment persisted, prompting the petitioner to seek redress through the High Court.
Legal Issues Addressed
1. Debarment Based on FIR: The petitioner challenged the debarment, arguing it was based solely on an FIR without any subsequent conviction or charges, violating principles of natural justice.
2. Compensation for Unjust Debarment: The petitioner sought damages for the period during which they were excluded from the tender process, claiming the debarment was arbitrary and caused significant financial loss.
Court’s Ruling
The bench, comprising the Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, ruled that the writ court under Article 226 does not have the jurisdiction to assess or award damages, as this requires a detailed examination of evidence, which is beyond the scope of writ proceedings. The court stated, “The writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the quantum of damage or compensation since the same requires adjudication by leading evidence for which the appropriate forum is elsewhere.”
– On Debarment: The court noted that the restriction on the petitioner had been lifted following the submission of the police’s final report, allowing the petitioner to participate in future bids. Thus, the petitioner’s request for the opening of the technical and price bids was deemed moot.
– On Compensation: The court dismissed the petitioner’s claim for damages under the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to seek compensation through a civil court, where evidence could be properly examined.
Also Read
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: M/s. Deepak Construction, represented by Advocate Nipun Bakshi.
– Respondents: The State of Jharkhand, represented by Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey (Assistant Counsel to the Advocate General), and the Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation, represented by Advocate Ranjit Kumar.
