Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.18 10:50:00 +0530 2025:CGHC:12659-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 133 of 2025 M/s. Mahatma Gandhi Salt Mundy (A Sole Proprietorship Firm Having Gstn - 33 Abypc 5638 B1 Zq Sole Proprietor Mr. Arumugam Chakravarthy (Chakravarty A B) S/o Arumugam N (Uid) No. 5932 , 5384 , 0584 ) Aged About 47 Years 14 Marappa 3 Street Suramparti Nall Road Erode Tamil Nadu 638009 Also At Kh. No. 197/66 Samnapur Road Kawardha Chhattisgarh Through Their Leglly Appointed Attorney Mr. Sagar Surana S/o Mr. Dinesh Surana (Uid No. 5687 , 1167 , 4369) Aged About 39 Years House No. 143 Ward No. 6 Berala Bemetara (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection (New Secretariat ) Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director Block 7 A Ii Floor Sector 24 Office Complex Head Quarter Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Tender Evaluation Committee For The System Tender No. 99564 Of Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director Block - 7a - 11 Floor Sector 24 Office Complex Head Quarter Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Advocate and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State as well as Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 29.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3207/2022 (M/s Mahatma Gandhi Sali Mundy vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge
Decision
has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein to the extent that the writ petitioner was granted further two months time to raise the dispute pursuance to the communication dated 06.07.2022 and if such dispute is raised, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law within the time as prescribed under Clause- 35 of the tender documents. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the respondents No.2 and 3 floated 3 NIT vide Letter No. Gur/Kray Nivida/2022-23/14 Nava Raipur dated 09.05.2022 (Tender No.99564). Writ petitioner along with others participated in the tender process and submitted its technical bid and financial bid. In the technical session, writ petitioner became successful and thereafter its financial bids were also opened. Upon opening of financial bids, writ petitioner was declared to be successful as his financial bid was found to be lowest than of others (L-1) i.e. Rs.52.00 per quintal. Immediately after opening of financial bid, writ petitioner realized that due to typographical error, instead of Rs.5200/-, it was erroneously mentioned as Rs.52/- per quintal. Therefore, writ petitioner immediately submitted a letter on 21.06.2022 mentioning that it was not possible to supply goods on Rs.52/- per quintal and requested to consider the rates as Rs.5200/- per quintal. The said letter was not considered and it was replied mentioning that financial bid of petitioner was found to be L-1 and it was accepted by Corporation and further mentioned that letter submitted by the petitioner dated 21.06.2022 after opening of financial bid was not accepted and directed to submit stamp paper of Rs. 100/- for enering into agreement. Writ petitioner again submitted letter reiterating the same facts and further requested to return back the earnest money if offer rate of Rs.5200/- per Quintal is not acceptable to the respondents. Respondent No.2 thereafter had issued impugned letter dated 06.07.2022 arbitrarily forfeiting the 4 amount of security deposit of Rs.1.00 Crore deposited along with bids, blacklisted petitioner's firm for a period of three years and further stated that action would be taken under Clause 16.2 of the tender documents. The action taken by respondent authorities is arbitrary as they failed to realize that it was a bonafide mistake and no reasonable man can come to conclusion that any person can supply jaggery (subject matter of tender) at Rs.0.52 paise per KG and Rs.52/- per quintal. Respondent No.2 being State subsidiary ought to have acted fairly and reasonably. Writ petitioner has not committed any wrong to the extent that he could have been blacklisted nor there is any basis for initiating proceedings for recovery of relevant expenses or to impose costs for risk and damages. Even no Show-Cause Notice was issued to writ petitioner before passing the order of blacklisting for a period of three years. Writ petitioner was not given an opportunity of 4 / 10 hearing through a show-cause notice specifying the reasons for such action. This Court granted interim relief in favour of the writ petitioner vide order dated 25.07.2022 detailing cogent reasons for existence of prima facie case in favour of the Petition. The respondents opposed the Writ Petition on the grounds of maintainability suggesting availability of efficacious alternate remedy of arbitration as per tender documents. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition in respect of the blacklisting but has directed the writ petitioner to approach the authorities within two months from the date of the order to raise the dispute pursuant 5 to the communication dated 06.07.2022 and if such dispute is raised, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law within the time as prescribed under Clause -35 of the tender documents. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein has preferred this present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petition filed by the writ petitioner was surely maintainable in view of the decisions of the 3 Judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra; (2020) 19 SCC 241". Further, it was a human typographic error that was promptly informed to the respondent corporation by the writ petitioner therefore, as there were other bidders with better rates, the writ petitioner should have been permitted by the respondent corporation to withdraw from the bid as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of “WB State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. 2001 (2) SCC 451”. The aforesaid typographic error was promptly informed to the respondent corporation before the acceptance of the offer/ price bid therefore, the writ petitioner should not have been penalized by the impugned decision. There are instances where such mistakes of bidders were considered by the respondent corporation which is quite lawful because the purpose of Tender process is not to harm any party but to obtain best competitive rates. The writ petitioner firm neither amended the 6 offer nor amended the rate or backdowns from the quoted rate but promptly sought corrections of an obvious typographic error committed while quoting the rate and was ready to enter into agreement within the scheduled date for supply of Jaggery @ Rs.5200/- per Quintal therefore, there was no action required to be taken as per clause 16, 16.1 & 16.2 of the subject tender's terms and conditions but as there were bidders with better competitive rates the petitioner could have been given fair exit from the bid. The respondent corporation should have considered the legal fact that, the error was notified and explained by the petitioner well before the acceptance of the offer therefore, petitioner's explanation should have been accepted in view of the provisions of section 5-7, 14 & 20-23 of the Indian Contract Act. He lastly submits that there was no agreement executed between the parties hence, there arose no occasion for the petitioner to seek the remedy of arbitration. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 7 Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein to the extent that the writ petitioner was granted further two months time to raise the dispute pursuance to the communication dated 06.07.2022 and if such dispute is raised, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law within the time as prescribed under Clause-35 of the tender documents observing that in the case at hand, no show cause notice as to why action of blacklisting be taken against writ petitioner is issued, hence, the letter/order dated 06.07.2022 so far as it relates to blacklisting writ petitioner for a period of three years was not sustainable and accordingly set-aside. With respect to other part of the order, in view of specific Clause -16 in the tender document of the consequence of amendment in rates, turning back and not executing agreement, writ petitioner is having other efficacious alternate remedy under Clause-35 of the tender documents of raising dispute before the Managing Director of respondent No.2 and time is also specified therein and further procedure is also prescribed, therefore, in view of the efficacious remedy available in favour of petitioner, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the writ petitioner to the extent indicated above. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered 8 with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet