Chief Justice led bench approves order by Justice A. Abhishek Reddy

In Baba Debraha Enterprises a proprietorship firm through its proprietor namely Rakesh Ranjan...vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024), in his 7-page long order dated November 18, 2024, Justice A. Abhishek Reddy of Patna High Court concluded:"The petitioner cannot be faulted for the lapses which has been committed by the respondent-authorities....The Respondents are directed to pay the amount of Rs. Rs.28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for purchase of the vehicles as per the terms and conditions of the bid document. That in so far as the other prayer of the petitioner seeking interest, security charges etc. are concerned this Court is not inclined to grant the same and the same is rejected. The authorities shall pay the amount due to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the amounts are not paid by the authorities within the stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of simple interest at the rate of 7% from the date of raising the invoice till the date of actual payment." Justice Reddy allowed  the writ petition. 

In The Nagar Panchayat Nirmali through its Executive Officer, District -Supaul & Anr. vs. Baba Debraha Enterprises a proprietorship Firm through its proprietor namely Rakesh Ranjan..& Ors. (2025), High Court's Division Bench led by Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered a 11-page long judgment dated July 22, 2025 disposed the case by partly allowing  the appeal. In his 2nd judgment as Chief Justice, Justice Pancholi concluded:". We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while issuing direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for the purchase of the vehicles in question. However, at the same time, at this stage, we record that the learned counsel appearing for the present opponent/original petitioner has, under the instruction, submitted that the delivery of the remaining 2 vehicles in question would be given to respondent nos. 4 and 5 as per the bid document/work order within a period of one week. It is needless to observe that the original petitioner shall maintain the vehicles in question for a period of one year from the date of supply as per the original terms and conditions of the bid document."

Referring to Justice Reddy's order, Justice Pancholi observed:"....we would like to observe that the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition and the other reliefs prayed by the petitioner have not been granted in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the dispute is with regard to the payment of Rs. 28,45,790/- incurred by the petitioner for purchase of the 2 Hooper Tippers from the concerned manufacturer. We are of the view that once the petitioner has purchased the vehicles pursuant to the bid issued by the respondent and as per the work order, the respondent was required to take the delivery of the said vehicles as per the terms and conditions of the bid document. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner and because of the fact that the respondent did not take the delivery of remaining 2 vehicles from the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered a loss."