Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.16 11:35:03 +0530 2025:CGHC:22067-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2613 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o P.L. Mittal Aged About 59 Years Occupation A Class Contractor R/o Main Road Korba P.S. And Tehsil Korba District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Engineer Haseo Basin Water Resource Department Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Engineer Water Resources Circle Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - M/s Mans Building Private Limited Opposite Bhargav Nursing Home, Saket Apartment Magarpara Road District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Ramesh Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respective respondents/State. 2 2. IA No. 3/2025 has been filed for urgent hearing of the matter as the matter pertains to award of contract and if the matter is not heard urgently, the petition would render infructuous. Another IA being IA No. 4/2025 has been filed for hearing the matter during summer vacation. 3. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to set- aside/quash the entire tender proceedings of NIT No. 07/SAC/2024-25 dated 08/01/2025 with System Tender No. 164006. (Annexure P-1) 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to set- aside/quash disqualification of petitioner's BID dated 30/04/2025 (Annexure P-2) 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the bid/tender by opening the financial bid of the petitioner. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondents not to issue work order in respect of NIT No. 07/SAC/2024-25 dated 08/01/2025 with System Tender No. 164006 to the private respondent. 10.5 That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's firm is 'A' class contractor with Unique Identification Number CGeR017074. The Respondents No. 1 initiated project for construction work of related to Katghora Diversion Scheme and under this scheme tender was floated on 08/01/2025 for the sum of Rs. 1607.65 lakhs in the said tender one of the conditions imposed by 3 the respondents was that the contractor who will be participating in the tender must be 'A' class contractor. The petitioner being 'A' class contractor participated in the tender process by submitting his financial on 25/02/2025. After submitting the entire documents of the BID the respondent authorities on 23/04/2025 via e-mail communicated to the petitioner that they have received complaint against the petitioner that one of the works which has been completed by the petitioner related to Municipal Corporation, Durg, is not valid as the dispatch number is not existing. The petitioner, as soon as he received the communication of the respondent authorities, replied to the e- mail stating that the work which the respondent authorities are alleging to be not-completed by the petitioner can be verified by the respondent authorities as the dispatch number is assigned by the concerned department and not by the petitioner/contractor and further the complaint has been made by the one of the competitor so that the petitioner will not be able to participate because there is clear chance that the petitioner will acquire the present tender. The petitioner was surprised to see the conduct of the respondent authorities as without any verification by the respondent authorities that straightway disqualified the bid of the petitioner on 30/04/2025 of the petitioner assigning the technical reasons that the petitioner has submitted incomplete documents whereby no verification process have been carried out by the authorities in fact the petitioner has submitted complete documents in support of his bid, the authorities just to award the tender to the private respondent have taken this step against the petitioner. On 30/04/2025, on the same day when the petitioner received the communication regarding his disqualification, the respondent authorities opened the financial bid and the private respondent No. 5 was declared as L-1 and tender has been awarded. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bid of the petitioner has been rejected as communicated vide e-mail dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P/2) on the ground that incomplete documents were filed by the petitioner. Mr. Tandon submits that though the petitioner had submitted complete documents and the only lacuna in the document/certificate was that there was no disptach number mentioned. Vide communication (e-mail) dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure P/8), the petitioner was informed that the certificate with regard to the work done/work in hand of Municipal Corporation, Durg, was not valid due to the dispatch number not existing. The petitioner was granted two days time to submit his response, which was duly responded on 25.04.2025 (Annexure P/9) stating that if the respondent/Department had any doubt with regard to the veracity of the certificate, the same could have been got verified from the authority issuing the certificate. Mr. Tandon submits that without verifying the said document/certificate, the petitioner has arbitrarily been disqualified. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly submits that the document/certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Durg, in favour of the petitioner has not been verified by the respondent authorities, however, the financial bid has been opened and the respondent No. 5 has been declared as L-1. 8. A query was made to the learned State counsel as to whether the work order has been issued or not, Mr. Thakur prayed for some time to seek instructions and on his request, the matter was passed over. 9. When the matter was taken up in the second round, Mr. Thakur 5 submits that as per the instructions received, no work order has been issued in favour of the respondent No. 5. 10. From perusal of the pleadings and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the only deficiency in the certificate submitted by the petitioner was that it did not had any dispatch number but the same cannot be the fault of the petitioner. It was for the authority issuing the certificate to put the dispatch number on it. Further, if the respondent authorities had any doubt with regard to the genuineness of the said certificate, the same could have been easily verified from the authority issuing the certificate, which admittedly has not been done in the present case and as such, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner by making verification of said certificate and thereafter take a decision with respect to the NIT in question afresh and till the decision is taken by the respondent authorities, work order shall not be issued in favour of respondent No. 5. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands
Decision
disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet