1 - Ramraja Minerals And Construction Private Limited A Private Limited Company Duly Incorporated v. Petiti
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13623-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1490 of 2025 1 - Ramraja Minerals And Construction Private Limited A Private Limited Company Duly Incorporated As Per The Provisions Of The Companies Act Having Its Registered Office At Plot No.- 289/197, Near Sadhana Mandap, Vip Road, Amlidih, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 492006, Through Its Director Namely Jayendra Singh Bhandari, S/o Man Singh Bhandari, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ram Raja House, Plot No.- 289/197, Vip Road, Post- Mana, Amlidih, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Cg 492006 versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking)- Through Its Managing Director, 4th Floor, C.G. Housing Board Commercial Complex, South East Corner, Sector 27, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, 4th Floor, C.G. Housing Board Commercial Complex, South East Corner, Sector 27, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Superintending Engineer Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, 4th Floor, C.G. Housing Board Commercial Complex, South East Corner, Sector 27, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - M/s Nakoda Construction Company Class-A Contractor, Main Road Dalli Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) 491228 ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent Nos. : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate. 2, 3 & .4 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State, Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of his bid and communication dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) and letter dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P/2) issued by
Decision
the respondent No.4 and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition: "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/ writs quashing the impugned rejection(downloaded from the website eproc.cgstate.gov.in) dt. 07.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) for NIT No.10026/NIRMAN/2024-25 dt. 12.08.2024 bearing system tender No. 157963 issued by the respondent no. 2 and also letter dt. 06.01.2025 (Annexure-P/2), issued by the respondent no. 4, holding the petitioner as qualified for the hid submitted by the petitioner for NIT dt. 12.08.2024 for the subject works; 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/directions to the respondents to consider and open the price-bid/financial bid submitted by the petitioner for NIT No. 10026/NIRMAN/2024-25 dt. 3 12.08.2024 bearing system tender no. 157963 for the subject work and if found eligible to accept the petitioner's bid and issue Letter of Acceptance and work order after completion of necessary formalities. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the award of tender/Letter of Acceptance and also work order, if any, issued in favour of any other bidder. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon'ble Court" 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 floated NE premium tender notice NIT No. 10026/NIRMAN/2024-25 dated 12.08.2024 bearing system tender No. 157963 (in short NIT). Inviting bids for the work of construction of the district hospital building at Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, including internal water supply, sanitary fitting, and electrification work etc. The last date for submission of online bid was 12.09.2024 upto 17:30 hours and bid opening date was 13.09.2024 at 11:00 a.m. Clause-II of the NIT prescribes the requirement of submission of document along with the bid through online mode and Clause- II of the said NIT is reproduced herein below: 2. It is mandatory to submit the Following online:- (A) For online Tenders, The Earnest Money (Refundable) and tender processing fees (Non Refundable) of Rupees 2000/- shall be deposited Electronically, according to the Clasue 3.2.1 of the Appendix 2.10 (The earnest money shall be deposited electronically by NEFT/RTGS, interest Banking, Debit/Credit Cards or any other online process of payment, Contractor is required to generate a challan through e-Procurement system for specific tender before transfer of fund and system generated challan may be submitted to bank physically for RTGS/NEFT of Contractor may use other online option for making payment in account number shown in the online generated challan. It is clarified that every contractors challan member will be different or each challan generated form system of different of same tender. The cost of money transfer (including Payment Gateway Commission etc.) has to be borne by the contractor it is advised that the contractors should consider the time taken to process 4 the payment electronically (i.e. NEFT/RTGS Net banking Credit/Debit cards). (B) Copy of Valid registration in CGPWD, should be valid till Last Submission date of Tender. (C) Valid Bank Solvency certificate (Nut Older than 12 Monthsfrom Last Submission date of Tender). Format Attached (Annexure C) (D) Affidavit on Nonon Non Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.100 in prescribed format attached in N.I.T. Documents (Annexure I) (Scan Original Copy) (E) Power of attorney/ Partnership deed (if any). (F) Contractor must be submitted the copy of valid Labour Provident Fund Registration with Employees Provident Fund Organization (Scan Original Copy) (G) Pre contract Integrity Pact on Non Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs. 50 Format Attached (Annexure H) (Scan Original Copy) (H) Information of Bid Capacity (Anex-1), Existing commitments and ongoing(Anex-2) Bid Capacity Affidavit (Anes 3) in prescribed format attached. (Bid Capacity Folder) 4. The petitioner has submitted his online bid on 12.09.2024 within the time schedule given in the NIT and as per his pleadings, he has submitted all the requisite documents along with the bid through online mode. 5. After submission of the bid by the petitioner company, the respondent No.4 vide its letter dated 25.11.2024 informed that as per the PWD registration there are two directors namely Jayendra Singh Bhandari and Sugandha Singh Bhandari but the affidavit of Mr. Yogesh Bansal has been submitted as such the petitioner firm is ineligible for subject NIT. The petitioner was granted two days time to give clarification regarding the same and informed that if he failed to submit his clarification within two days his bid will not be opened treating him disqualified. On 27.11.2024 the petitioner has submitted his reply submitting that Mr. Yogesh Bansal has signed the document in the capacity of the Director of the petitioner company of the relevant document were again submitted along with their clarification and requested authorities to re-consider the documents already submitted along with the bid and to open the bid of the petitioner. The clarification was sent by the petitioner 5 through e-mail to the respondent authorities but he was declared ineligible and his bid was not opened on a hyper technical ground. The respondent No.4 again issued a letter dated 29.11.2024 stating therein that the petitioner has not submitted his clarification within time, therefore, his bid will not be opened treating it as disqualified. The petitioner again submitted its reply through e-mail on 02.12.2025 intimating the authorities about filing of the earlier clarification and submitted all the documents. The representative of the petitioner company were repeatedly persuading the respondent corporation with regard to the illegal objections raised by the respondents corporation and were under impression that their financial bid will be opened treating them as eligible and qualified. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the financial bid of the respondent No. 5 was opened and his bid was rejected on 07.03.2025 treating it as disqualified without giving any reasonable opportunity which is under challenge in the present petition. 6. It is also the pleadings of the writ petitioner that on 06.01.2025 a letter was issued to the petitioner in reference of e-mail dated 02.12.2024 intimating thereby that the affidavit is executed only by Mr. Yogesh Bansal where there are two directors of the petitioner company namely Jayendra Singh Bhandari and Sugandha Singh Bhandari and thereby no documents to the effect that Mr. Yogesh Bansal was the power of attorney holder or the director of the company has been filed through online mode along with the bid, therefore, his bid was rejected. These two orders dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P/2) and 07.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) which is under challenge in the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that through e-mail dated 29.11.2024 the respondents have intimated that vide letter dated 25.11.2024 two days time was granted to the petitioner to clarify the defects but they have not submitted his clarification within the stipulated time, therefore, their bid will not be opened treating it as disqualified whereas the petitioner has already submitted his clarification on 27.11.2024 which has not been considered by the authorities and by 6 letter dated 29.11.2024 again they were informed that the petitioner has not filed his clarification in response to the letter dated 29.11.2024 the petitioner has further submitted his clarification on 02.12.2024 which reflects from the letter dated 06.01.2025 that the e-mail of the petitioner company has been received by the respondent authorities yet his bid has not been considered. He would further submits that the petitioner has submitted the affidavit as required under the NIT and pre-contract Intergrity Pact in Annexure-H. The said document were uploaded online wherein the affidavit was sworn by Mr. Yogesh Bansal Vide-President director of the company and was authorized representative as per the resolution and power of attorney executed in his favour. Therefore, there was no occasion to disqualify the petitioner on that ground that their affidavit is defective. He would further submits that the petitioner was granted only 2 days time to rectify or clarify but in order to oust the petitioner and only to show the bonafide an eyewash notice has been issued by the respondents on 29.11.2024 that he has not submitted his clarification and his bid will not be considered. He would further submits that the respondent authorities were pre-determined to grant the tender in favour of the respondent No.5 and despite clarify the discrepancies within the time, the bid of the petitioner have not been considered. He would also submits that the tender documents of the other bidders including the respondent No. 5 were also incomplete yet their bid has been considered as qualified but the petitioners bid have not been considered which is arbitrary and liable to be interfered by this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the tender has been floated by the respondent No.2 and he would properly answered in the matter, however, he supported the impugned action of the respondent authorities. 9. Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would submit that the bid of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the impugned order dated 06.01.2025. The reason for rejection of the bid of the petitioner was just and proper as the petitioner did not confirm to the norms and 7 necessary conditions of the tender vis-a-vis the necessary criteria mentioned at Clause-II of the NIT which states that it is mandatory to submit the affidavit in form attached in the NIT document (Annexure P/1) online mode and other documents as required under Clause-II of the said NIT. He would also submits that despite receiving the notice dated 22.11.2024, the petitioner failed to clarify the said deficiency, therefore, his bid was not considered as per the terms and conditions of the NIT and ultimately it was rejected vide order dated 06.01.2025 which was communicated to him on 07.03.2025. He would further submits that the tender is opened and the respondent No. 5 has been declared as L-1. Thus, the petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the tender deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and Others 2023 SCC Online SC 671, made specific observation that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. Para 54 of the judgment of Tata Motors Limited (supra) is as under:- 54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special 8 features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes." 12. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Tata Motors Limited (supra) and particularly the fact that the petitioner did not confirm to the norms and necessary conditions of the Tender, the necessary criteria mentioned in the NIT which states that it is mandatory to submit the documents including the particular with respect to the affidavit in form have not been attached with the bid and when the petitioner was informed about the deficiency that as per PWD there were two directors namely Jayendra Singh Bhandari and Sugandha Singh Bhandari whereas the affidavit was sworn by Mr. Yogesh Bansal and sought clarification within 2 days through online/e-mail mode. But the petitioner failed to comply with the communication dated 25.11.2024 and he would only sent his clarification on 02.12.2024 which reflects from the letter dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P/2). Further on 12.12.2024 the bid was opened and respondent No.5 was declared as L-1 and tender was allotted in his favour. Therefore, in absence of any clarification within stipulated time and the manner in which it was sought, the rejection of the bid of the petitioner cannot said to be illegal rejection which warrants any interference. 9 13. In view of the above, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief claimed by the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.03.27 18:52:33 +0530