Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2758-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 165 of 2025 Yashwant Naik S/o Shri Vidya Nand Naik Aged About 38 Years R/o Chandrapur Road, Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bhilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.S. - Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Directorate of Urban Administration and Development Through Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director Regional OfÏce, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Nagar Panchayat, Baramkela Through Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bhilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.16 16:49:47 +0530 For Petitioner For Respondents/State For Respondent No. 4 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 16 .0 1 .202 5 1. Heard Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/State and Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/directions for quashing the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) and the petitioner be permitted to complete the tender work as per the NIT dated 06.12.2024 issued by the respondent No. 4/Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/directions for quashing the subsequent NIT dated 02.01.2025 (Annexure P/8) issued by the respondent No. 4/Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble 3 Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that E-Procurement Notice Inviting Tender (1st Call) dated 06.12.2024 was issued by the Nagar Panchayat, Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) for two different works, namely, Beautification of Parritar Pond in Ward 1 and 2 and Garden Construction Work in Ward 09. He also submits that, time was the essence of contract and both the works were required to be completed within a period of 03 months. The various dates mentioned in the NIT are as under: “a. Bid Start Date b. Bid Due Date : : 07.12.2024 17.12.2024 (Last date of filling up the tender form) c. Physical Verification of Document : 23.12.2024 d. Opening of Bids : 26.12.2024” 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid NIT dated 06.12.2024, the physical verification of the documents of all the bidders were done on 23.12.2024 and the documents submitted by all the bidders were found to be correct. He also submitted that the financial bid was opened on 26.12.2024 and for both the works, the rates offered by the petitioner was the lowest, hence, the petitioner was declared ‘L-1’ on the same day. The petitioner was declared ‘L-1’ for both the works as the rate offered by him was 11.30% below SOR which is one of the lowest SOR quoted by the petitioner in the last 05 years. 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all of the sudden on the same day i.e. on 26.12.2024, one of the person, namely, Rakesh Naik (who is Parshad of the respondent No. 4, Municipality) preferred complaint to the respondent No. 4 stating that insufÏcient time was given for submitting the tender. He further states that neither the complainant participated in the tender proceedings nor any of the contractors have echoed their grievance with regard to insufÏcient time granted to them for filing up the tender forms and merely one of the bidder, namely, Ashish Kumar Patel, who happens to be the close relative of the complainant could not declared successful in the said tender, therefore, such a claim has been made to the respondent No. 4. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without verifying the veracity of the complaint, the NIT issued on 06.12.2024 by the respondent No. 4 was unilaterally cancelled by them on 01.01.2025 and even no reasons whatsoever was assigned in the said order of cancellation. He also contended that on 03.01.2025 subsequent to tender cancellation, explanation was submitted by the respondent No. 4 to the Superintending Engineer, Zonal OfÏce, Department of Urban Administration and Development Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) stating that on the instructions of higher authorities, the online NIT was cancelled. As per the information of the petitioner no such instructions have been given by the higher authorities to cancel the aforesaid NIT dated 06.12.2024 and merely self serving statement has been made by the respondent No. 4. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid tender work was duly approved by the General Sabha of the Nagar 5 Panchayat Baramkela in its meeting dated 13.11.2024 wherein it was unanimously resolved to complete the entire tender process within 20 days. He further state that, as per the letter dated 09.12.2021 issued by the respondent No. 3, guidelines was issued to all the Chief Municipal OfÏcers of the entire Municipality to complete the tender process within stipulated time interval and the time prescribed for completing the entire tender process for 1st Call is 20 days. He further states that despite petitioner being declared ‘L-1’, the NIT dated 06.12.2024 has been cancelled unilaterally without assigning any reasons and on the very next day another NIT dated 02.01.2025 has been floated by respondent No. 4 for the same work and for the same amount. Hence, this petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that one Rakesh Naik, Councillor for Ward No. 11 preferred an application complaining the irregularities committed in online tender No. 162571 & 162574 in which only 10 days time was given for submission of tender whereas as per the government rules from the bid opening date to bid due date, 20 days is required to be given, thus there is a mistake committed by non-following the government rules, therefore, the time limit may be extended or again new tender may be issued according to the rules. He would submit that the aforesaid application/complaint was taken into consideration on the very same date and it was decided to send the complaint for clarification/guideline from the higher authorities and subsequently the respondent No. 4 was orally directed to cancel the aforesaid tenders, and therefore, it was ordered that the tenders be cancelled and new tenders be issued by note-sheet dated 01.01.2025. 6 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 is tried to justify the rejection of the petitioner’s bid, but the petitioner has been submitted that the return which has been filed by the respondent No. 4, it does not disclose the actual reason for rejecting the bid of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 is directed to communicate a reason to the petitioner within a period of two days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, for rejection of the petitioner bid and thereafter, proceed with the second NIT issued on 02.01.2025. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed off. 12. C.C. today. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan