Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3826-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 465 of 2025 M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal A Partnership Firm Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, Having Its Registered Office At 1st Floor, Kanhaiya Tower, Near Bus Stand, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Naveen Agrawal, S/o, Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. House No. 04, Bahadurganj Mar, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.23 18:39:00 +0530 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chairman Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Engineer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. (Member Of The Tender Committee) 6 - Shreejikarupa Project Limited A Company Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Companies Act, Through Its Director Mr. K.B. Patel, Having Its Registered Office At 303, Iscon Mall, Near Big Bazar, 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001 Commercial Office At 280, Sundar Nagr, Behind C.S.E.B. Office, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 492013 2 7 - Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (Chips), State Data Center Bhawan, New Circuit House, Civil Liines, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : For Respondent No.1/State : For Respondent Nos.2 to 5 :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Mr. Nirnay Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Nirnay Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 / NR 2. The sequence of events is as follows : Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran has floated a tender bearing No. 29/INFRA/ CHUB/CE/NRANVP/2024-25 dated 11.09.2024 for development of basic infrastructure facilities for the establishment of commercial hub (Thok Vyavsayik Bazar / Commercial High Street) in Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). The petitioner, being a registered partnership firm, participated in the said tender process and submitted the technical bid and also price bid separately, as prescribed. But the technical bid of the petitioner 3 came to rejected vide Annexure P-1 on the ground that the bidder not meeting the eligibility criteria i.e. “(ii) The Bidder must have experience of Laying Work of HDPE Pipe / GI Pipe / DI Pipe of 9500.00 Running Meter or more in a single agreement”. The petitioner made a representation to the Department for reconsideration of the matter and requested the Department to cross verify the Experience Certificate from the concerned authorities. The Department on the representation of the petitioner firm has realized the mistake and cross verified from the Superintending Engineer National Highway Circle PWD Raipur. The Superintending Engineer vide its letter dated 19.12.2024 has verified the Experience Certificate issued to the petitioner firm. After due verification of the certificate, the Chief Executive Officer/Respondent No. 4 vide its letter dated 07.01.2025 has taken a final decision to rollback and to open the financial bid of the petitioner firm and has requested respondent No.7 to open the financial bid of the petitioner firm, but the respondent No.7 has refused to rollback the online tender and has informed the CEO that, tender cannot be rollback for opening financial bid of the bidder as requested by NRDA, Thereafter, instead of opening the financial bid, CEO has cancelled the entire tender, that too without assigning any reason and also floated a fresh tender being NIT/E- procurement notice bearing NIT No. 79/INFRA-CHUB/CE/ NRANVP/ 2024-25 for the same work and last time and date of online submission is 15:00 Hrs on 03.02.2025. Being aggrieved 4 by the same, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs : “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the decision of cancellation of entire tender process vide (Annex.P/1) and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to open the financial bid of the petitioner firm and if the petitioner firm would be found Lowest one than the authorities may further be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for award of contract. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the decision of declaring the respondent No. 6 as successful bidder may also kindly be set-aside and the authorities may further be directed to evaluate the financial bids of the petitioner firm as well as the respondent No. 6 and thereafter to take a final decision of the award of contract as per the terms and conditions of the NIT. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders and the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter of CEO of respondent No.7 dated 10.01.2025, which is a part of Annex.P/1 and the Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to set-aside the fresh NIT/E-procurement notice bearing NIT No. 79/INFRA-CHUB/CE/ NRANVP/ 2024-25 issued by the authorities for the same work. 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits 5 that the petitioner, being eligible for participating in the tender in question, has participated in the tender process and submitted its technical bid as well as financial bid. His technical bid was opened and rejected on the ground that the bidder not meeting the eligibility criteria i.e. “(ii) The Bidder must have experience of Laying Work of HDPE Pipe / GI Pipe / DI Pipe of 9500.00 Running Meter or more in a single agreement” and the petitioner was supposed to submit a certificate to that effect. The certificate was submitted by the petitioner, a copy of which is at page 185 of the petition and along with said certificate, Bills were also submitted by the petitioner, which was objected by the respondent authorities saying that in the Bills though the certificate shows that the petitioner is having requisite experience, but Bills does not show the payment of that work and that is the criteria on the basis of which the petitioner was technically disqualified. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to Department that he has virtually completed the work and the Government Agency has issued his certificate, but earlier the technical bid was already rejected and subsequently, the Department verified from the Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle vide letter dated 19.12.2024 (AnnexureP-15) whether the petitioner has executed the work or not and if executed, please provide the total executed length and total expenditure with specification and the same was replied by the Superintending Engineer to the NRDA 6 vide letter dated 20.12.2024 (part of Annexure P-16) has verified that the petitioner has executed the said work. Thereafter, on realizing that the technical bid of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected, the Chief Executive Officer (NRDA), who is the authority to award the work, he issued a letter to respondent No.7, which is Nodal Agency executing the entire work, requesting to open the financial bid of the petitioner firm, but the respondent No.7 has refused to rollback the online tender and has informed the CEO vide letter dated 10.01.2025 (annexed at page 44) stating therein that, please refer 32nd Empowered Committee meeting held on dated 16th February, 2016 wherein it was directed that ‘Such rollback’ in e-procurement system during tender processing at any stages by either the Department officials or anyone should not be permitted, except when it is mandated by Hon’ble Court etc. Thereafter, instead of opening the financial bid, just to oust the petitioner, CEO has cancelled the entire tender, that too without assigning any reason and also floated a fresh tender being NIT/E- procurement notice bearing NIT No. 79/INFRA-CHUB/CE/ NRANVP/ 2024-25 for the same work and last time and date of online submission is 15:00 Hrs on 03.02.2025. In support of his contention he placed reliance of the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M/s. Yuvraj Singh Babra Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 2181 of 2019 decided on 15.10.2019). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Nirnay Gupta, learned counsel, appearing 7 for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 / NRDA opposed the aforesaid submission made by the petitioner and submitted that the pre- requirement for technical qualification is “(ii) The Bidder must have experience of Laying Work of HDPE Pipe / GI Pipe / DI Pipe of 9500.00 Running Meter or more in a single agreement” and the experience certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was not regarding the said criteria, which the respondent / NRDA has sought clarification and after verification, when it was found that the petitioner has done the said work, on the fairness and not arbitrary, the Department wrote a letter to the Chips, who is a Nodal Agency asking them to rollback the bid of the petitioner, but since the Chips has refused to rollback the same, therefore, the whole tender has been cancelled and fresh tender has already been floated by the Department and the last date of submission of the tender is 03.02.2025, the petitioner is free to participate in the fresh tender. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 6. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner, being eligible for participating in the tender in question, has participated in the tender process and submitted its technical bid as well as financial bid. His technical bid was opened and rejected on the ground that the bidder not meeting the eligibility criteria and the petitioner was 8 supposed to submit a certificate to that effect. The certificate was submitted by the petitioner and along with said certificate, Bills were also submitted by the petitioner, which was objected by the respondent authorities saying that in the Bills though the certificate shows that the petitioner is having requisite experience, but Bills does not show the payment of that work. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to Department saying that he has virtually completed the work and the Government Agency has issued his certificate, but as earlier the technical bid of the petitioner was already rejected, the Department wrote a letter Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle seeking verification as to whether the petitioner has executed the work or not and if executed, please provide the total executed length and total expenditure with specification and the same was replied by the Superintending Engineer to the NRDA vide letter dated 20.12.2024 (part of Annexure P-16) has verified that the petitioner has executed the said work. Thereafter, on realizing that the technical bid of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected, the Chief Executive Officer (NRDA), who is the authority to award the work, issued a letter to respondent No.7, which is Nodal Agency executing the entire work, requesting to open the financial bid of the petitioner firm, but the respondent No.7 has refused to rollback the online tender. Thereafter, entire tender has been cancelled and also floated a fresh tender. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner is technically not qualified and only 9 because the online tender cannot be rollback for opening financial bid of the bidder, unless it is mandated by Court of law. 7. Considering the fact that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the technical competency of the petitioner and he is eligible to participate in the proceeding, causing the price bid to be considered, we are of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned Annexure P/1, cancelling the entire tender process is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 4 / Chief Executive Officer is directed to treat the petitioner as technically qualified, and to consider his price bids along with the price bids submitted by other eligible hands and finalize the tender in accordance with law; as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as, the issuance of subsequent tender for the same work is concerned, the same shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra