JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

Invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed the present writ application seeking the following relief: -

“That in the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for issuance of rule calling for the records and calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ should not be issued for setting aside the order dated 25.03.2019 and subsequent order dated 26.06.2020 holding the same is illegal, null and void and/or so as to be pleased to make the rule absolute And/or be pleased to pass any other/orders/directions as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

2. It is significant to note at the very outset that judgment in this case was reserved on 22.03.2022 for being delivered on 29.03.2022. However, considering the nature of issues involved in the writ application, it was deemed proper to pass following order on 29.03.2022: -

“This matter has been listed under the heading ‘For Judgment’ today. However, the Court has considered it desirable to seek additional information from the State of Bihar in view of the nature of controversy which has arisen in the present writ application in respect of the consequence of the order dated 25.03.2019.

Let the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited file an affidavit stating specifically the consequence of the said order dated 25.03.2019 mentioning clearly as to whether the decision as contained in the said order dated 25.03.2019 shall have the consequence of debarring the petitioner from participating in any tender process in future which may be undertaken by the Respondent-Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited. The affidavit must be filed by 05.04.2022.

List this matter on 05.04.2022 under the same heading.”

3. The matter was subsequently directed to be listed for judgment on 11.04.2022. However, in the meanwhile, the respondent Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited (‘BRPNNL’ for short) decided to modify its impugned orders 25.03.2019 and 26.06.2020 by issuing another order dated 08.04.2022. The said order dated 08.04.2022 has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the subsequent development, the Court, by an order dated 11.04.2022 recalled the earlier order, whereby the judgment was reserved, in the interest of justice. The matter was subsequently re-heard on 26.04.2022. In the light of this Court's order dated 26.04.2022, this case has been placed for judgment today.

4. The petitioner, it is stated, is an architectural and design consultant firm having international recognition. It was issued a work order by the BRPNNL for preparing the design of a flyover bridge from R-Block to G.P.O., Patna on 10.10.2006. Subsequently, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and BRPNNL on 16.03.2007, with 10.10.2006 as the date of the commencement of the work, i.e., the date on which the work order was issued. The construction work of the said flyover had begun on the basis of partial design and drawing submitted by the petitioner. During the course of the execution of the work, certain discrepancies in the design submitted by the petitioner were noticed. The said deficiencies in design were brought to the notice of the petitioner by letter dated 28.03.2017, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-5 to the writ application. In view of the nature of deficiencies, so detected, the petitioner was asked to get the practical difficulties arising out of defective design resolved immediately after sending an experienced designer of the petitioner’s company, failing which the BRPNNL would be constrained to take appropriate action in terms of the agreement. By a subsequent letter dated 30.03.2017 addressed to the Managing Director of the petitioner-company issued by the Senior Project Engineer, Special Works Division, BRPNNL, it was informed