1 - Pankaj Haldar S/o Late Ramesh Haldar Aged About 46 Years R/o House v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department Mantralaya
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:22462-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2672 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Haldar S/o Late Ramesh Haldar Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 25, P.V. 25 Po Mixesed Farm, Ramkrishanpur, Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) -Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department Mantralaya, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintending Engineer Pwd Bastar Circle, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - The Executive Engineer Pwd (B And R) West Bastar Division Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 4 - Manoj Kumar Singh Nakulnar, Village Nakulnar, Post Nakulnar Dantewada, District- Dantewada Chhattisgarh-494552 5 - M/s Gayatri Infratech A- Class Contractor Jagdalpur, Opp Dnk Samachar, Vrindavan Colony, Maa Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)- 494001 Respondent(s) WPC No. 2673 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Haldar S/o Late Ramesh Haldar Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 25, P.V. 25 Po Mixesed Farm, Ramkrishanpur, Uttar Bastar, Kanker (Cg) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) 2 - The Superintending Engineer Pwd Bastar Circle, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Cg) 3 - The Executive Engineer Pwd (B And R) West Bastar Division Bijapur, District Bijapur (Cg) 4 - Manoj Kumar Singh Nakulnar, Village Nakulnar, Post Nakulnar Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh- 494552 5 - M/s Gayatri Infratech A- Class Contractor Jagdalpur, Opp Dnk Samachar, Vrindavan Colony, Maa Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Cg)- 494001 Respondent(s) WPC No. 2676 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Haldar S/o Late Ramesh Haldar Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 25, P.V. 25 Po Mixesed Farm, Ramkrishanpur, Uttar Bastar, Kanker (Cg) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) 2 - The Superintending Engineer Pwd Bastar Circle, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Cg) 3 - The Executive Engineer Pwd (B And R) West Bastar Division Bijapur, District Bijapur (Cg) 4 - Manoj Kumar Singh Nakulnar, Village Nakulnar, Post Nakulnar Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh- 494552 5 - M/s Gayatri Infratech A- Class Contractor Jagdalpur, Opp Dnk Samachar, Vrindavan Colony, Maa Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Cg)- 494001 Respondent(s) 3 WPC No. 2684 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Haldar S/o Late Ramesh Haldar Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 25, P.V. 25 Po Mixesed Farm, Ramkrishanpur, Uttar Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Superintending Engineer Pwd Bastar Circle, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Engineer Pwd (B And R) West Bastar Division Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh 4 - Manoj Kumar Singh Nakulnar, Village Nakulnar, Post Nakulnar Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh – 494552 5 - M/s Gayatri Infratech A Class Contractor, Jagdalpur, Opp Dnk Samchzar, Vrindavan Colony, Maa Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh - 494001 Respondent(s) WPC No. 2705 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Haldar S/o Late Ramesh Haldar Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 25, P.V. 25 Po Mixesed Farm, Ramkrishanpur, Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department Mantralaya, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintending Engineer Pwd Bastar Circle, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - The Executive Engineer Pwd (B And R) West Bastar Division Bijapur, District- Bijapur (C.G.) 4 - Manoj Kumar Singh Nakulnar, Village- Nakulnar, Post Nakulnar Dantewada, District- Dantewada Chhattisgarh-494552 4 5 - M/s Gayatri Infratech A Class Contractor Jagdalpur, Opp Dnk Samachar, Vrindavan Colony, Maa Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)- 494001 Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General along with Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 29/05/2025 1.
Decision
Since, all the Writ Petitions filed by the same petitioner which involves similar facts and grounds, they are being considered and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPC No. 2672/2025 are being referred. 2. Challenge in all these writ petitions is to the e-mail/communication dated 16/05/2025, whereby the tender documents of the petitioner have been rejected during Part-1(Envelope B) evaluation (i.e. Techno- commercial evaluation) by the tender owner for tender of the Public Works Department due to Annexure-2 On-Going Work- EE Certified Copy not submitted and it was observed that the petitioner will not be allowed to participate in the price bid opening for the tender. 3. The respondents’ authorities issued the NIT for different works. The petitioner being eligible candidate, participated in the tender process and submitted the relevant documents as sought for in the NIT. According to the petitioner, at the time of opening of the Part-1(Envelope B) 5 evaluation (i.e. Techno-commercial evaluation) by the tender owner, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit Annexure-2 On-Going Work- EE Certified Copy and as such the petitioner will not be allowed to participate in the price bid opening for the tender. The petitioner would submit that the impugned action on the part of the respondents’ authorities is illegal, arbitrary and not at all sustainable in the eyes-of- law. According to the petitioner, the respondents’ authorities acted with a mala fide manner only to give undue advantage to the blue eyed boys. He would submit that albeit the private respondents have also not submitted the relevant as per the NIT, their tenders have been accepted for further consideration. From the said fact, it is quite vivid that the authorities are acting in a pick and choose method that too as per their whims and fancies. Thus, these petitions. 4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State, ex-adverso, would submit that the bid (Techno-commercial evaluation) of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the authorities because the petitioner has not submitted the tender documents as per the details mentioned in the NIT. He would submit that in the NIT, it has specifically been mentioned that the bidders are required to submit the details of list of work in progress; the amount of each contract and total period of completion with information of original stipulated date of completion and actual date of completion; and balance of works remaining to be done, and the remaining time allowed as per the contract. He would submit that the existing commitments and on-going all classes of civil engineering 6 construction work are to be submitted in Annexure-2. Learned Advocate General would further submit that the bidders are required to submit the requisite details along with their tender forms failing which, the contractor shall disqualify for the work and his financial offer shall not be opened and no representation, appeal or objection, whatsoever, in this regard shall be entertained. He would submit that it is mandatory to submit on-line by the contractor, the list of on-going works/works in hand and if any work is found delayed beyond one year from the stipulated date of completion due to contractor’s fault, the contractor will be disqualified for the reason of poor performance. Despite the said facts, the petitioner failed to give the requisite details as per Annexure-2. Thus, the technical bid of the petitioner has rightly been rejected in all the cases and the same is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended with the petitions. 6. For the sake of convenience, it is apt to quote relevant provisions/conditions of the NIT, which reads as under:- “Clauses 3.9, 3.9 (1) & 3.9 (2): 3.9. List of Works in progress; tenderer must furnish a list of contracts already held by him at the time of submitting the tender, in the department and elsewhere showing therein. 3.9. (1): The amount of each contract and total period of completion with information of original stipulated date of completion and actual date of completion. 3.9. (2): Balance of works remaining to be done, and the 7 remaining time allowed as per contract. XXX XXX XXX Special Conditions of NIT:- XXX XXX XXX (12) Contractors are advised to go through the Notice Inviting tenders & the tender/PQ document thoroughly. Certificates, annexures, enclosures as mentioned in the document will have to be submitted by the tenders strictly in the prescribed format, at the time of submission of Technical/Financial bid, failing which the contractor shall disqualify for the work & his financial offer shall not be opened and no representation, appeal or objection, what so ever in this regard shall be entertained by the department. (13) It is mandatory to submit online by the contractor the list of on-going works/works in hand. If any work is found delayed beyond one year from the stipulated date of completion due to contractor's fault, the contractor will be disqualified for the reason of poor performance XXX XXX XXX (19) It is Mandatory for the C & D Class Bidders, to submit online the list of ongoing works/works in hand in the annexure A (enclosed). If the total value of ongoing works/work in hand is more than 2.5 times the capacity as specified for C and D class bidders. The bidder will be disqualified. (Amendment issued vide Deputy Secretary Govt. of Chhattisgarh Public Works Departments, Raipur Memo. No. 21-5/T/19/2012 Tender.Naya Raipur Dated 27.09.2016). XXX XXX XXX 7. Bare perusal of the documents Annexure-1 i.e. information on Bid- capacity {work performed as prime contractor (in the same name in and 8 style) on all classes of Civil Engineering Construction works over the last five financial years}, it is manifest that the petitioner has submitted the requisite data, however, while submitting the document Annexure-2 i.e. existing commitments and on-going all classes of civil engineering construction works, by the prime contractor, the petitioner failed to submit the relevant documents or details, whereas he simply mentioned the fact that ‘work in progress’. From the said fact, it is crystal clear, the petitioner has not given the complete details of existing commitments and on going works. The petitioner ought to have submit the requisite documents as per the specific terms and conditions mentioned in the NIT. 8. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that albeit the private respondents have not submitted their tender forms as per the NIT and even they have not produce the relevant data, but their technical bids have been accepted. In this regard, learned State counsel would categorically submitted that the private respondents have submitted the requisite data as per the NIT and on due scrutiny of the technical bids submitted by all the participants, the respondents’ authorities have rightly accepted the technical bids of the said private respondents. In fact, the petitioner himself failed to submit the relevant document as per the Annexure-2 and there are deficiencies in the tender form submitted by the petitioner. The respondent/State rightluy rejected the bid/tender documents submitted by the petitoner. There is no illegality in the said decision taken by the State. 9. It is settled law that the authority competent to pass orders under any 9 statute or guidelines is like an expert body when it has passed the order with reference to certain guidelines and the same is not interferable in writ jurisdiction unless the same is palpably illegal and perverse. 10. Ex-consequenti, all the Writ petitions, sans substratum, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 11. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra