Justice Sandeep Kumar sets aside order by District Magistrate-cum-District Mining Officer, Aurangabad, directs him to pass reasoned speaking order

In Shailendra Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Ors. (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar passed a 20-page long judgement dated April 3, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "....this Court deems it appropriate that the violation of principle of natural justice in the present case, warrants remand of the present matter to the District Magistrate-cum-District Mining Officer, Aurangabad for passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 27. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 issued by the District Magistrate-cum-District Mining Officer, Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate-cum-District Mining Officer, Aurangabad for passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 28. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent." The other three respondents were:Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad-cum-District Mining Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Aurangabad and Mines Development Officer, District Mining Office, Aurangabad. 

The petitioner had prayed for quashing the order bearing Memo No.1396 dated October 8, 2025 issued under the signature of Respondent No.3 whereby the Earnest Money Deposited by the Petitioner in the auction for settlement of Sandghat Aurangabad Son-14A was arbitrarily forfeited. The writ petition sought direction upon District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad-cum-District Mining Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Aurangabad, the Respondent No. 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 2,34,22,500/- which was deposited by the petitioner as EMD in connection with Tender Notice for settlement of Sandghat Aurangabad Block 14-A (Aurangabad Son 14-A) or in alternative consider the said EMD submitted vide NEFT bearing UTR No. SBINR52025090597754809 as EMD for the fresh Tender Notice floated on October 20, 2025, including Aurangabad Son 14-A Sandghat at Serial 2. It had prayed for issuance of writ or order or a direction restraining the respondent from the proceeding with the fresh tender process pursuant to NIT dated October 20, 2025 in exclusion of the petitioner till adjudication and disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner had prayed for directing the Respondent No.3 to settle the Sandghat Aurangabad Son 14-A re-advertised vide short notice inviting Tender Notice dated October 20, 2025 in favour of the petitioner and for holding that the Respondent No. 3 admitting the existence of Technical glitch due to which the Petitioner could not participate in bidding process, could not have passed the impugned order forfeiting the EMD due to non-participation of the Petitioner in the bidding process on the date of bidding. He wanted the Court to hold that in the facts of the present case the Respondent No.3 could not have forfeited the EMD of the petitioner as due to admitted technical glitch, the petitioner could not have been alleged to have violated Clause 19(v) of the Tender Notice”. 

The respondent-Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Bihar, published a tender notice for settlement of ghats situated in the district of Aurangabad including Aurangabad Sone 14-A. Being eligible, the petitioner participated in the bid and paid EMD of Rs. 2,34,22,500/- along with bid security amount of Rs.5000/- and Rs.5900 along with other necessary documents. According to the tender notice, the date and time for financial bidding/auction was slated for 16.09.2025 between 11:00 AM to 01:00 PM. It was the case of the petitioner that on the day of financial bid, he attempted to participate, however, according to him, he was prevented from participating in the financial bidding process on account of some technical error/glitch on the portal. The technical glitch preventing him from participating in the financial bid process on the specified date and within stipulated time was beyond the control of the petitioner. It was
the case of the petitioner that the petitioner immediately contacted the office of BELTRON which was entrusted for operating the e-portal at proc2.bihar.gov.in and therefore boda fide attempted to participate in the financial bidding process. It was also the case of the petitioner that he had submitted a representation dated September 16, 2025 requesting the respondent authorities to conduct the process afresh but vide impugned order dated October 8, 2025, the earnest money deposit of an amount of Rs.2,34,22,500/- was forfeited in terms of Clause-19(v) of the tender notice on the ground that the petitioner deliberately did not participate in the bidding process.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of the petitioner was wholly illegal since he had attempted to log-in into the portal for participating in the e-auction process, however, for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner he was prevented from participating in the aforesaid process. Consequent upon the representation dated September 16, 2025, filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities had called for a report from BELTRON regarding the technical glitch on the date and time when the process of e-auction was going on, to which, BELTRON had replied vide its e-mail dated September 24, 2025 wherein, according to the counsel for the petitioner, BELTRON had admitted that there was indeed certain technical error on the portal of e-auction which had
subsisted till 1:01 P.M. on September 16, 2025. According to the tender notice, the auction process was only till 1:00 P.M. and therefore, the petitioner could not participate in the e-auction process. Adverting to Clauses- 14 and 19(v) of the tender notice, the counsel for the petitioner argued that though the participant to the e-auction process was vigilant regarding I.T. resources and its functioning, however, the technical glitch or issue on the portal itself was beyond the control of the petitioner and therefore, cannot result into punishing the petitioner himself, more-so, when admittedly, the respondents admitted to the existence of technical glitch on the portal. The counsel for the petitioner submitted no show-cause notice seeking explanation from the petitioner was issued before forfeiture of the EMD of the petitioner, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is bad in the eyes of law.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that for the settlement of sand ghat at Aurangabad Sone 14-A, altogether three participants including the petitioner had filed tender notice document and in the technical bid the petitioner and one M/s. Laxmi H.P. Gas Agency were found technically qualified for the bid. The counsel emphasized that M/S. Laxmi H.P. Gas Agency was automatically restrained from participating in the present bid process since one Sand Ghat i.e. Sand Ghat No.16-A had already been allotted to the aforesaid other participant and therefore, the said bidder being restrained from participating in the auction, therefore, the petitioner remained the sole bidder. Out of a total of three participants one was disqualified in the technical bid itself and out of remaining two bidders, one was restrained from participating in the bid process since he had already been allotted another sand ghat in the same district, and therefore, as a consequence, the petitioner remained the sole bidder and in such case, the provisions under Clause-19(vi) of the Tender Documents ought to have been applied whereunder the respondents were bound to issue a fresh auction and in case of no participation even in response to such fresh notice, the respondent no.3 would be required to make necessary recommendation to the respondent department for decision on the point of acceptance of the proposal of the single bidder. Therefore, once the co-bidder M/S. Laxmi H.P. Gas Agency was prevented from participating and the petitioner was left as the single bidder, the provisions of Clause-19(vi) ought to have been implemented and the respondent no.3 had to issue a notice instead of passing the impugned order forfeiting the E.M.D. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order forfeiting the E.M.D. of the petitioner was punitive, arbitrary and wholly illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 

Notably, during the pendency of the case, the respondents had come out with fresh tender notice for the settlement of the subject sand ghat and in these circumstance the High Court vide order dated November 4, 2025, had permitted the petitioner to participate in the fresh tender process without depositing fresh E.M.D. subject to the final outcome of this writ  petition. Thereafter, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating therein that pursuant to the order of the High Court he was allowed to participate in the fresh bidding process but the petitioner failed to succeed in the said fresh bidding process.

Justice Kumar observed: "It appears that the petitioner was neither issued notice nor was heard before forfeiting his E.M.D., which clearly violates the principles of nature justice." He relied on Supreme Court's decision in Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported as (2025) 7 SCC 545 wherein it emphasized on the imperativeness of principles of natural justice, particularly, before an administrative authority acting as a quasi judicial function. It observed:“43. The opportunity of hearing is considered so fundamental to any civilised legal system that the courts have read the principles of natural justice into an enactment to save it from being declared unconstitutional on procedural grounds [Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545]. 44. It has been argued before us that if the failure to provide hearing does not cause prejudice, observing the principle of natural justice may not be necessary. In this context, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379] speaking through Chinappa Reddy, J. considered such arguments to be “pernicious” and held that “[t]he non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary”. The Supreme Court, however, has drawn out an exception where “on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible, and under the law only one penalty is permissible, then the Court may not compel the observance of natural justice” [Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 : (1981) 51 Comp Cas 210; Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 965]. 45. Professor I.P. Massey [I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (8th Edn., 2012).] has commented on this shift as under: “Before the decision of the highest Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379], the rule was that the principles of natural justice shall apply only when an administrative action has caused some prejudice to the person, meaning thereby that he must have suffered some “civil consequences”. Therefore, the person had to show something extra in order to prove “prejudice” or civil consequences. This approach had stultified the growth of administrative law within an area of highly practical significance. It is gratifying that in Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379] , the
Court took a bold step in holding that a separate showing of prejudice is not necessary. The non-observance of natural justice is in itself prejudice caused. However, merely because facts are admitted or are undisputable it does not follow that the principles of natural justice need not be observed.” 46. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717], the Supreme Court observed that where an enquiry is not convened by any statutory provision and the only obligation of the administrative authority is to observe the principles of natural justice, the court/tribunal should make a distinction between a total violation of the rule of fair hearing and violation of the facet of that rule. In other words, a distinction must be made between “no opportunity” or “no adequate opportunity”. In the case of the former, the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid and the authority may be asked to conduct proceedings afresh according to the rule of fair hearing. But in the latter case, the effect of violation of a facet of the rule of fair hearing has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice." 

Drawing on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Krishnadatt Awasthy (supra), Justice Kumar pointed out that "it is clear that the principles of nature justice must be adhered to strictly. However, in the present case, the same has not been adhered to since the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited without having been given an opportunity of hearing. In my opinion, the petitioner should have been issued a proper notice and should have been given an opportunity of hearing before forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by the petitioner."

Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, Justice Sudhir Singh sets aside interim order by Justice Dr. Anshuman for "flouting the principles of natural justice" although State was serevd copy of petition

In The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar vs. Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sudhir Singh, delivered a 8-page long judgement dated January 12, 2026, wherein, it set aside 9-page long interim order dated March 27, 2025 by Justice Dr. Anshuman. It was heard and adjudicated along with Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026). 

The judgment was delivered upon hearing the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by the State of Bihar against the interim order by Justice Dr. Anshuman. The writ petition was filed by Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh, the Respondent No. 1 in the LPA for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter no. 1042 dated 20.09.2024 issued by the Officer on Special Duty (OSD), Health Department, Bihar, Patna whereby and where under the petitioner was removed from the post of Nodal Officer. He had also sought issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of the Nodal Officer as the petitioner was removed from the post without any Departmental Enquiry which is against the principle of natural justice. He further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for direction to the respondent authorities to not consider the representation filed by Association of Management of Homeopathic Medical College of Bihar in the light of letter no. 945 dated June 24, 2005 whereby and where under as per clause 4(1), any anonymous, pseudonymous applications/complaints will not be processed and the said Association of Management of Homeopathic Medical College of Bihar is not a registered institution in the State of Bihar. He had also sought issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus to issue direction to the respondent authorities to consider the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner vide letter dated September 23, 2024 and to quash the show cause vide letter no. 1032 dated September 19, 2024.

In his order dated March 27, 2025, the following order was passed by Justice Dr. Anshuman:-

“10. Upon call on 12:30 PM, it has been intimated by Counsel for the State that the Special Secretary / Special Executive Officer (Renu Kumari) is on leave today, and therefore, unable to attend the Court, but in the place of the said officer, Deputy Director, AYUSH, Health Department, Government of Bihar, namely, Mr. Anjum Akhtar along with his assistant has appeared, in person. 11. Mr. Anjum Akhtar, Deputy Director, through advocate, submits that he is aware that the petitioner was appointed as Nodal Officer vide order dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Special Executive Officer/Special Secretary (Renu Kumari), Department of Health. He fairly intimated to this Court through his advocate that he is unable to assist on this point that even after receiving the complaint dated 18.07.2024 by the Federation of Medical College, to whom the said respondent No. 4, Special Executive Officer (Renu Kumari) and other official demanded 15 days time to ascertain about the said complaint on oath and also demanded evidences but prior to that without any material, removed the petitioner from the said post on 20.09.2024. 12. It transpires to this Court that such action which was taken place by the Special Executive Officer, is in gross violation of natural justice. It also transpires from the pleadings that the petitioner, who was holding the post of Class- I officer and the said Special Executive Officer/Special Secretary who issued the order is definitely not the appointing authority for him. It also transpires to this Court that the matter in which investigation is pending, particularly relating to admission in the homeopathy medical colleges is a sensitive issue and the petitioner who issued letter, demanding documents from the medical colleges in accordance with National Commission of Homeopathy Act, 2020. Demanding documents from the medical colleges by the Nodal officer in the light of press release for public at large issued by the Authority is a correct and legal steps to stop the illegal admission in homeopathy colleges. But instead of providing those documents to the Nodal Officer, the colleges from whom those documents were demanded by the the said Nodal Officer, filed complaint and the said Executive Officer has taken action under the influence of the Federation of Medical Colleges without verifying the same in spite of the fact that verification was demanded by the said Officer from the colleges on the same day in which 15 days time was granted by letter dated 19.09.2024, and taken action for removal on 20.09.2024 is really unfortunate and in gross violation of natural justice. 13. This Court shall not permit to continue such illegality at the hand of the Special Executive Officer and feels that intense enquiry is required in this matter. This Court finds that injustice took place with the petitioner which shall be resulted into affect the career of the students who have successfully competed in the NEET examination in the future. Hence, this Court feels it necessary to interfere in the said order issued by the Special Executive Officer. Therefore, the said letter issued by the Special Executive Officer, dated 20.09.2024 is hereby stayed, till further order.
14. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, is hereby directed to look into this matter seriously and submit a report to this Court within 60 days. 15. It is made clear that the said report shall be submitted after conducting an enquiry from an officer not below the rank of Secretary other than the Health Department. 16. The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, is hereby directed to restrain the Special Executive Officer/Special Secretary (Renu Kumari), who has issued the letter No. 1042 dated 20.09.2024 from doing any work of AYUSH Directorate till submission of Enquiry report with a view to conduct the independent enquiry in this matter. 17. Counsel for the State is hereby directed to file counter-affidavit within 70 days. 18. List this case on 16.06.2025.”

P.K. Shahi, Advocate General who appeared for the State submitted that the order passed by the Justice Dr. Anshuman was not sustainable in the eyes of law on the ground that no opportunity was given to the State-respondents to controvert the averments made in the writ petition and in fact, no counter affidavit was filed and the order was passed on the first day of the hearing. It was also submitted that the Single Judge had exceeded the  jurisdiction on irrelevant materials and issued direction to the appellants. The finding arrived at by the Single Judge that the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) was taken action under the influence of Federation of Medical College was not correct inasmuch as it was taken after the approval of the competent authority in administrative experience. Some other grounds were taken. The main ground was on the point of violation of principles of natural justice. 

Shilpi Keshri, the counsel appearing for Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh, the Respondent No. 1 conceded that the State was not provided with opportunity to file the counter affidavit and, therefore, he had no objection if the impugned order was set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Single Judge as per the roster to deal with the matter on merits. She had filed the original writ on February 19, 2025. It was registered on March 21, 2025. 

In the 10th judgement authored by Chief Justice Sahoo, he concluded:"4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the admitted fact that the principles of natural justice has been flouted and the State has not been given opportunity to file counter affidavit/response and the fact that there was no proper material before the learned Single Judge to take action against the Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, as was directed, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. 5. CWJC No. 4616 of 2025 shall be listed before the learned Single Judge as per the roster, to be decided in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to all the parties. 6. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed. .....Re: CWJC No. 4616 of 2025 8. Let this case be listed before the learned Single Judge as per the roster under the appropriate heading." Subsequent to the judgment, the case has not been listed as yet. 

But wasn't the State served copy of the petition before the hearing commenced on the first day of the hearing. If the copy was served can the State claim that it was not been given opportunity to file counter affidavit/response. Wasn't Shilpi Keshri, the counsel appearing for Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh, the Respondent No. 1 under legal obligation to serve a copy of the petition before the hearing commenced? Why did she concede that the State was not provided with opportunity to file the counter affidavit if the copy was served on the State. If the copy was served on the State by the petitioner's counsel, can it be inferred that Justice Dr. Anshuman flouted the principles of natural justice? It is intriguing as to why petitioner's counsel did not point out to the Division Bench about the fact that Justice Dr. Anshuman did not flout the principles of natural justice because the State was given a copy of the petition and therefore, it did have an opportunity to file its counter affidavit/response.   

Notably, in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.(2024), a 5-Judge Constitution Bench (Reference Court) of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the full bench in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency(p) Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) to hold that there cannot be an automatic lapse of stay proceedings on the expiry of a period of six months from the date of passing the interim order for stay of proceedings. The Reference Court did not concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 by the full bench in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency(p) Ltd. vs. CBI. It answered the two questions posed in Reference in the negative. The two questions were: Whether the Supreme Court can order for automatic vacation of stay on proceedings by way of expiry of a certain period? Whether the Supreme Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, can direct the High Court to decide pending cases in which an order for a stay of proceedings has been granted on a priority basis within a fixed period? But the Reference Court clarified that where trials have been concluded on the basis the decision of Asian Resurfacing, the orders of automatic vacation of stay shall remain valid. 

Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri led Division Bench sets aside letter by Deputy General Manager (Project), Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited

In Anil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it set aside the letter by Deputy General Manager (Project)-cum-Accepting Authority, the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited dated February 29, 2024. This is the 13th judgement by Chief Justice Baajathri.

The petitioner had prayed for quashing of the exparte order of debarment contained in Letter No. 669 dated February 29, 2024 by which, the Deputy General Manager (Project)-cum-Accepting Authority, the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited, a Government of Bihar undertaking without issuing any Show Cause Notice and without any jurisdiction proceeded to debar the petitioner from participating in any future contract till the work allotted to the petitioner was not completed. He had also prayed for restraining the Respondents from giving effect to and proceeding further in connection with exparte order of debarment as contained in Letter dated February 29, 2024 during the pendency of the present writ application and/or without the leave of the High Court.

Justice Bajathjri observed: '....'it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not been heard in the form of issuance of show cause notice and receipt of reply. Impugned decision has a civil consequences on the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to show cause notice and other formalities before passing any adverse order. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the communication dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure - P/6) and it is set aside.'' The judgement added:''3. Respondents are at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding by issuing show cause notice and seeking petitioner’s explanation. On receipt of petitioner’s explanation, proceed to pass a detailed and speaking order after due consideration of each of the contention to be raised against the show cause notice. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.''

It is apparent that senior officials of Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited need a lesson on principles of natural justice. 

Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri led Division Bench sets aside Memo by Chief Engineer, (Planning & Engineering), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL)

In Jain Associates vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company through its Managing Director & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it set aside the Memo October 15, 2024 by the Chief Engineer, (Planning & Engineering), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL) through its Managing Director.This is the 12th judgement by Chief Justice Baajathri.

The petitioner, a partnership firm had prayed for issuance of Writ in nature of Certiorari quashing the Memo No. 784 dated October 15, 2024 passed by Chief Engineer, (Planning & Engineering), South Bihar Power Distribution Company through its Managing Director, the Respondent No. 2, wherein the Petitioner Company was debarred from Supplying materials (cables) to SBPDCL for next five years.

The High Court observed; "2. In identical matters, we have interfered in number of cases only on the sole ground that without show-cause notice and receipt of reply and thereafter to proceed for passing adverse order like debarring/blacklisting, the respondents have not learnt lesson. Be that as it may, in the present case, petitioner has not been provided opportunity of defending his case. In other words, show-cause notice has not been issued by the competent authority as to why petitioner shall not be debarred."

The judgment reads: "3. On the sole ground, we are interfering with the impugned action of the respondents. In CWJC No. 8099 of 2025 [M/s Daksha Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company & Ors.], decided on 23.09.2025, is aptly applicable to the case in hand. 4. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure-P/8) stands set aside reserving liberty to the concerned authority to proceed strictly in accordance with law, since the authorities exercise quasi judicial function. That apart, if any action is taken against the petitioner, it has civil consequences. In such circumstances, invariably parties who are likely to be affected should be heard in the matter. Liberty reserved to the concerned authority to pass a suitable order after due opportunity of hearing in the form of written as well as oral. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.''

Will someone teach the Managing Director, SBPDCL about principles of natural justice? His/her repeated failure to adopt these principles is indefensible.