High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.25 10:40:56 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:18547-DB NAFR WPC No. 2011 of 2025 Gopal Singh S/o Late Shri Parikshit Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o West Chirmiri Colliery - 497773, PS Poudi, Tehsil - Chirmiri, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), A Registered Class-B Contractor Having Unique Identification No. CGe R01070 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Special Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Chirmiri Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Chirmiri, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 3 - Ms Pramod Pandey Through Its Proprietor Pramod Pandey S/o Late D.N. Pandey, Office Address Camp No. 01, Ward No. 21, Pandey Kunj, Block No.71, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr.H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent : : No.2 Ms.Preeti Yadav, Advocate Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.04.2025 1. Heard Mr.H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 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 an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing to quash the illegal declaration of the private respondent as L1 (Annexure P/1) and ensure adherence to the tender conditions in letter and spirit. 10.2 That, Issue a writ, order, or direction directing respondent authorities to declare the petitioner as L1 and award tender to petitioner in interest of justice. 10.3 Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondent authorities on 25.02.2025 have floated the tender having system bearing No. 165194 3 name of work titled as Supply of Unskilled Workers for Health and Sanitary Department. In the tender process, several interested contractors submitted their Letters of Intent, thereby expressing their willingness to participate in the bidding process. The petitioner has also bidded in the tender by submitting all the requisite documents needed according to the notice inviting tender. Other contractors including private respondent have also demonstrated their interest in the said tender process and also submitted their documents. However, on 21.03.2025, when the technical bids were opened, it became glaringly evident that the private respondent lacked the requisite documents as mandatorily prescribed under the Notice Inviting Tender and the same is evident from the perusal of Annexure P/4 and Annexure P/5. 4. It is an admitted position that the private respondent failed to submit atleast two fundamental documents essential for eligibility under the tender conditions. Firstly, the mandatory G.S.T. Registration Certificate, as explicitly required under Clause 1(C) of the Notice Inviting Tender, was not furnished. Secondly, the private respondent did not deposit 2% of the contract amount as TDR, which was imperative for securing the Employees Provident Fund (E.P.F.) obligation, for which the petitioner has submitted representation (ANNEXURE P/6). 5. Despite such manifest deficiencies and non-compliance with the essential tender conditions, the respondent authorities, in complete disregard of the prescribed eligibility criteria, proceeded to open the financial bid and arbitrarily declared private respondent No.3 as L1 4 bidder. Such an action not only vitiates the sanctity of the tendering process, but also constitutes a flagrant violation of the principles of transparency, fairness, and adherence to the established norms, thereby warranting the interference of this Court. Hence, this writ petition. 6. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the private respondent has failed to submit essential documents, including the G.S.T. Registration Certificate as mandated under Clause 1(C) of the Notice Inviting Tender and the 2% of the contract amount as TDR for securing the Employees' Provident Fund (E.P.F.) obligation. Despite such glaring deficiencies, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily proceeded with the tender evaluation, rendering the process illegal and unsustainable in law. He further submits that the respondent authorities, in utter disregard of the fundamental principles of fairness and transparency, have proceeded to open the financial bid and declared respondent No.3 as L1. Such an action vitiates the integrity of the tendering process and is manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner, having submitted all requisite documents in strict compliance with the tender conditions, has been unfairly prejudiced due to the respondent authorities wrongful and arbitrary decision. The deliberate overlooking of the private respondent's non-compliance amounts to a denial of equal opportunity and violates the principles of natural justice and level playing field in government procurement. He also submits that Government tenders are required to uphold the highest standards of transparency, fairness, and accountability. The respondent authorities 5 action in favoring an ineligible bidder not only undermines these principles but also jeopardizes public interest by allowing a non- compliant contractor to execute public work, which may have serious financial and operational repercussions. He contended that the decision of the respondent authorities to overlook the mandatory eligibility criteria and proceed with the financial bid evaluation of the private respondent exhibits a clear case of non-application of mind. Such a decision is liable to be set aside as it has been rendered in a wholly mechanical, arbitrary, and capricious manner without due regard to the tender stipulations and the action of the respondent authorities, if allowed to persist, would set a dangerous precedent wherein bidders who do not fulfill mandatory tender requirements are wrongfully favored. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and declaration of private respondent as L1 deserves to be quashed and the respondent authorities may be declared the petitioner as L1 and award tender to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and submits that work order in respect to the subject tender has already been issued in favour of the private respondent No.3 and the tendering process stands concluded. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 6 9. From perusal of the documents, it transpires that tendering process has been completed and respondent No.3 has been declared as L1 and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was declared as L3. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition and also considering the fact that tendering process has been completed and respondent No.3 has been declared as L1 whereas the petitioner has been declared L3, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu