Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2747-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5741 of 2024 Mohammad Mukhtar A Proprietorship Concern, Through Its Proprietor Mohammad Mukhtar, S/o Late Bashir Ahamad, Aged About 41 Years, Ekta Nagar, Sarbahara, Pendra Road, District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh- 495117 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In Chief Rural Engineering Services, Vikas Ayukt OfÏce, Vikas Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintending Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering, Services, Division Marwahi, Headquarter Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kuber Prasad Tiwari, (C-Class Contractor) (Registration No. Cger00273), Korja Gourella, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 7 - M/s Usha Enterprises, Prop. Jaswant Jaiswal (D-Class Contractor) (Registration No. Cger25400), Purana Gourella, District- Gourella-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. N.N.Roy, Advocate. General 2 WPC No. 5766 of 2024 M/s. Alok Agrawal Through Its Proprietor, Mr. Alok Agrawal, S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years, Having Its OfÏce At, Near Jain Dharamshala, Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer Rural Mechanical Services Division, Marwahi, Head OfÏce Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 3 - M/s Shivay Construction Through Its Partner Madhav Prasad Mishra, S/o Shri Shukhnandan Prasad Mishra, Age 43 Years. R/o Ward No. 9, Village Gorakhpur, Tehsil - Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. N.N.Roy, Advocate. General WPC No. 5812 of 2024 M/s. Alok Agrawal Through Its Proprietor, Mr. Alok Agrawal, S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years, Having Its OfÏce At Near Jain Dharamshala, Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer Rural Mechanical Services Division, Marwahi, Head OfÏce Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 3 - M/s Shivay Construction Through Its Partner Madhav Prasad Mishra, S/o
Legal Reasoning
Shri Shukhnandan Prasad Mishra, Age 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 9 Village - Gorakhpur, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 3 For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate For Respondent No. 3 Mr. N.N.Roy, Advocate. General WPC No. 5818 of 2024 M/s. Alok Agrawal Through Its Proprietor, Mr. Alok Agrawal, S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years, Having Its OfÏce At Near Jain Dharamshala, Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer Rural Mechanical Services Division, Marwahi, Head OfÏce Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 3 - M/s Shivay Construction Through Its Parnter Madhav Prasad Mishra, S/o Shri Shukhnandan Prasad Mishra, Age 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 9 Village - Gorakhpur, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. N.N.Roy, Advocate. General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/01/2025 1. Since the facts and issues involved in all these petitions are identical, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 4 2. Heard Mr. Ankit Singhal and Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the respective petitioners as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent 3. The petitioner, in WPC No. 5741/2024, has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/ writs quashing the impugned rejection (for system tender no. 159822) & (for system tender no. 159824) dated 05.11.2024 (ANNEXURE- P/1 & P/2) issued by respondents no. 4, holding the petitioner as qualified for the bid submitted by the petitioner for NIT dt. 10/10/2024 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 for system tender no. 159822 & for system tender no. 159824, dt. 10/10/2024 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, if any. Given in favour of any other bidder, during the pendency of the instant petition. 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. ” 4. The petitioner, in WPC No. 5766/2024, has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the email rejection dated 04.11.2024 and any consequential action denying the Petitioner's right to participate in the price bid for Tender 5 bearing NIT No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 159554, Block Gourella. 10.2 That, this this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order, or direction to declare the Petitioner eligible to participate in the price bidding phase of Tender bearing NIT No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 159554 for Block Gaurela, and to award the contract to the Petitioner if their bid is determined to be the lowest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.” 5. The petitioner, in WPC No. 5812/2024, has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the email rejection dated 04.11.2024 and any consequential action denying the petitioner’s right to participate in the price bid for Tender bearing NIT No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 159556, Block Marwahi. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the Petitioner eligible to participate in the price bidding phase of Tender bearing NIT No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 159556 for Block Marwahi, and to award the contract to the Petitioner if their bid is determined to be the lowest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted. ” 6. The petitioner, in WPC No. 5818/2024, has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the email rejection dated 6 04.11.2024 and any consequential action denying the Petitioner’s right to participate in the price bid for Tender bearing No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 15955, Block Pendra. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order, or direction to declare the Petitioner eligible to participate in the price bidding phase of Tender bearing NIT No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 159555 for Block Pendra, and to award the contract to the Petitioner if their bids is determined to be the lowest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.” 7. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, in WPC No. 5741/2024 is that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is a registered contractor in "C" Class with unified registration system (e-registration) with the Piblic Works Department and is eligible to participate in the tender invited by the respondents. The respondent No. 4-Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Marwahi, has floated an e-procurement tender notice NIT dated 10.10.2024 inviting bids for two works i.e. (1) Prayogshala Kaksh Nirman Karya 03 Nag (Sha. Higher Secondary School, Tikarkala), Gram Panchayat Tikarkala, Vikas-khand Gourella, and (2) Samudayik Swasthya Kendra Marwahi Me Ahata Avam Interlocking Farsh Nirman Karya, Gram Panchayat- Kumhari, Vikas-Khand Marwah. The present petition is with respect to said NIT dated 10.10.2024 for both the works. 8. According to Mr. Dadariya, the petitioner has the requisite eligibility and experience to participate in the tender issued by the respondent. The last date for submission of online bid was 25.10.2024. The petitioner accordingly submitted the online bid on 24.10.2024 within the time schedule given in the tender and all the mandatory requirements of 7 tender condition was fulfilled. As per the tender condition petitioner has submitted the online bid along with the documents, afÏdavit, certificate, Annexures and earnest money deposit as sought by the respondents with the bid in the prescribed format and procedure. The petitioner participated in said tender for the aforesaid two works and submitted his bid. As per the requirement the petitioner submitted its technical bid comprising of two parts i.e Envelop A and Envelop В. EMD, AfÏdavit and Annexure-J was to be uploaded and simultaneously hard copy of the same was required to be submitted in Envelop A. the petitioner uploaded the said documents and had also submitted the same in Envelop A specifically mentioning NIT No.4/2024-25 (as reflected online while submitting e-tender), in the AfÏdavit and NIT No. 4/2024-25 (as reflected online while submitting e tender), system tender No. in Annexure-J. As per online Tender/NIT details in the ofÏcial website of the respondent i.e. cgproc.cgstate.gov.in against the description the NIT No. 4/2024-25 is mentioned, as such in the AfÏdavit and Annexure J, the petitioner had also mentioned the same as such, there was no occasion to disqualify the petitioner on the said grounds. The respondents, without scrutinizing and considering the aforesaid documents and without considering the fact that the requisite information is specifically mentioned in the aforesaid documents, disqualified the petitioner for the subject NIT vide impugned rejection (for system tender No. 159822) & (for system tender No. 159824) (downloaded from the website eproc.cgstate.cg,in) dated 05.11.2024. The impugned rejection of the petitioner's bid and disqualifying the petitioner from the tender process is without consideration of terms of tender and the documents filed by petitioner along-with its bid. On perusal of the afÏdavit and Annexure J which the petitioner is required to submit, specifically mentions NIT No. in AfÏdavit 8 and NIT No. System Tender No. in Annexure-J, as such non-disclosure of the same cannot be a reason for disqualification of bidder. The petitioner has submitted relevant document etc. and all the information's furnished with the bid documents is correct in all respect. The bid was opened 04.11.2024 and the petitioner was treated disqualified vide impugned rejection on 05.11 2024, without giving any opportunity of hearing, else the petitioner would have demonstrated that the aforesaid information as per the requirement is very much mentioned in the afÏdavit and Annexure-J. The said action of the respondent authorities shows that the petitioner has been disqualified in violation of principles of natural justice, under the pressure, in order to grant benefit to the favourable person. The aforesaid two documents were also submitted in the other tender bearing NIT No. 03/2024-25 dated 13.09.2024 and the same were accepted and the Tender Committee proceeded further with tender process. 9. Mr. Dadariya further submits that one Mr. Prikshit Suryawanshi, was substantially holding the post of Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, sub-Division, Pendra and was only holding additional charge of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division, Marwahi. That, the said person has already been transferred from the present place of posting to Mungeli vide order dated 24.10.2024 made effective with immediate effect and the bid was opened on 04.11.2024 by him without any authority, as such he was not authorized to open the bid and disqualify the petitioner. As such, the impugned action, disqualifying the petitioner vide impugned rejection makes the same being without authority. Infact, it is the ill intention and malafide act of the respondent No. 4 just in order to favour its favourable tenderer by casually eliminating the other tenderers for no rhyme or reason. The said act of 9 Mr. Suryavanshi has been brought to the higher authorities of the Department but nothing has been done till date. The impugned communication rejecting the petitioner's bid, thereby, declaring the petitioner as disqualified for the tender process is illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the terms of tender document issued by the respondent authorities. The petitioner has made a representation on 06.11.2024 before the respondent No. 4 but no action, much less any positive decision, has been taken till date and the respondent authorities were in great hurry to declare their favourable candidate as successful and have also issued the work order. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that as per the instruction, a Tender Committee was constituted which opened all the bids received for the aforesaid works on 29.10.2024. During the course of scrutiny of the documents submitted in Envelope A, it was found that the petitioner has quoted wrong NIT number in the afÏdavit and further has not quoted the letter number in the afÏdavit and further in the footer also, the NIT number has wrongly been mentioned / quoted whereas the correct NIT number is 6/2024-25 whereas the petitioner has quoted wrong NIT number as 04/2024-25. Further in the integrity pact also, the petitioner has not quoted the NIT number and letter number and further in the footer also, the NIT number has wrongly been mentioned / quoted and further the details of the witness has not been provided. This can be very well ascertained from the petitioners documents which have been filed as Annexure P/6 at page No. 97, 98 and 101 of the instant petition. It is submitted that owing to all the aforesaid defects, the petitioner's bid was rejected. The petitioner submitted a representation / claim and objection before the competent 10 authority which has been annexed as Annexure P/10 at page No. 114 in the instant petition and in response to the same, the petitioner was duly informed vide letter dated 06.11.2024 about the shortcomings in the documents submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has also raised a ground that the SDO, who was ofÏciating as In- charge Executive Engineer, RES Division Marwahi, was not competent to head the Scrutiny Committee as he stood transferred on 24.10.2024 in this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the SDO, RES Mr. Parikshit Suryawanshi was given the additional charge of the Executive Engineer, RES Division Marwahi on 27.06.2024 and he was transferred on 24.10.2024 to Mungeli. However, he was not relieved on the date when the tender Envelope A was opened and being the In- charge Executive Engineer, he was very well competent to be a part of the Tender Scrutiny Committee. Mr. Thakur further submits that after scrutiny of all the documents submitted by the tenderers, the final work order with respect to both the works has already been issued on 11.11.2024 and 14.11.2024 respectively to the respondent No. 6-Kuber Prasad Tiwari and respondent No. 7-M/s Usha Enterprises. 11. Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that although the respondent State has filed its detailed reply to the writ petition pointing out the anomalies committed by the petitioner having a fatal impact on the tender submitted by it, however there are certain legal aspects associated with the tender process which needs to be addressed in addition to the version of the State Government. The scope of judicial intervention in the tender matters is very limited and in fact restricted to a great extent unless certain perversity or absolute arbitrariness is surfaced in the conduct of the authority conducting the tender process. All that is needed to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Court 11 is as to whether the tender process has been conducted impartiality or indiscriminately or not and also as to whether the decision reached by the authority withstands the test on the anvil of reasonability. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner having miserably failed to raise any impropriety in the action of the respondent State on any of such counts as stated above, the present petition lacks any merit so as to appeal this Hon'ble Court to interfere and as such the present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. Insofar the merits of the present case is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 among others participated in response to the NIT bearing e NIT No.: 06/2024-25 (First Call) issued by the respondent State dated 10.10.2024, wherein after a due scrutiny of the documents spread in three envelopes (Envelope containing EMD, pre-contract integrity pact (Annexure and afÏdavit, Envelope B containing technical documents and Envelope C containing financial bid) the private respondent emerged as successful candidate and was awarded with work orders dated 11.11.2014 and 14.11.2014 to conclude the works under the NIT. The State is the best person to address on the rejection of the bid of the petitioner at the very beginning i.e. the stage of Envelope A only, finds it worthy to submit that from perusal of the documents placed on record the rejection of the tender of the petitioner does not comes out to be unlikely, since the same fails to satisfy the bare minimum requirements of being in order even in terms of the prescribed format. The legal position being well settled since ages to the effect that the terms of the NIT are to be construed in a very strict manner without deviation of even a flinch, the respondent State had no alternative but to reject the tender of the petitioner when he failed to mention correct NIT number in the afÏdavit and at the bottom of it and further has failed to mention the letter 12 number in the afÏdavit. Likewise, the pre-contract integrity pact (Annexure - J) failed to contain the NIT number and letter number with wrong NIT number mentioned at the bottom. In addition, the Annexure- J also failed to contain the names of witnesses at its last page. which could not have been ignored, being a vital necessity to validate the same. So far as the contention of the petitioner of the tender process having been performed by an ofÏcial having no competence in view of the regular incumbent on the post of Executive Engineer having already transferred on 24.10.2024 as compared to the opening of tender on 29.10.2024 the tender process may not sustain the test of validity for want of authority on part of the respondents being one made in desperation deserves a strong note of this Hon'ble Court, since the petitioner despite knowing the fact of the substantial authority performing his duties upto 18.11.2024 i.e. till his relieving in pursuance of the order of his transfer the actions performed by him could not be questioned on such count as has been done in the case Further, the petitioner despite being communicated on 06.11.2024 itself of rejection of his tender had otherwise no reason to wait upto 18.11.2024 to file the present petition, i.e. the date when the substantial authority got relieved for joining the transferred place of posting. Therefore, the petitioner having not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands as is apparent does not deserve any lenient consideration and the present petition merits rejection in limine with an observation of vacating of the interim order by this Hon'ble Court. 12. Rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner to the returns filed both by the State as well as the respondent No. 6. 13. Mr. Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the contention of the State counsel that the respondent No. 6 after due scrutiny emerged as a successful bidder is specifically denied as no 13 scrutiny of the documents submitted by the respondent No. 6 has been done and vital defects in the documents submitted by respondent No. 6 has been ignored to give undue benefit. Further, it is specifically denied that the respondent No. 6 has been awarded work order dated 14.11.2014, as the same was awarded to respondent No. 7. There are defects and shortcomings not in one but in various documents submitted by the respondent No. 6, as the afÏdavit submitted by the respondent No. 6 does not contain system tender number and the space is left blank; further Annexure-J submitted by the respondent No. 6 shows that instead of firm - Kuber Prasad Tiwari it is mentioned Shivay Construction supplier represented by Shri Kuber Prasad Tiwari as the bidder whereas the work has been awarded to firm Kuber Prasad Tiwari; further there are discrepancies in Annexure-I and Annexure -Il as well as in Annexure I date of work order is incompletely mentioned as 08/22 instead of 12/08/22 with respect to the work 'Charadana godown nirman pashu marg ...." shown at sl. No. 5 of Annexure-I; likewise, Annexure-II is not in format of 16 columns and even the project name in column 2 is shown as Electrical & Civil works whereas the work shown under the description of work is purely Civil; in the same Annexure-Il date of work order is also incorrectly mentioned as 17.08.23 instead of 18.08.23. Even the work order date 11.11.2024 filed by the respondent State as well as respondent No. 6 is false and forged document as the work order refers to and mentions the contract number as 6/DL/2024-25 dated nil whereas, the respondent No. 6 himself had filed the work order for the same work in other tender ie" Mahatari Sadan Nirman Karya Dharhar, Vikashkhand-Marwahi" (bearing System Tender No. 163379, NIT No. 8/2024-25, 2nd call, 1182/nivida/2024-25) which mentions the contract No. 12/DL/2024-25 dated 11.11.2024. It appears that in haste just in 14 order to frustrate the petition the work order has been prepared despite the fact the this Hon'ble Court had restrained the respondent State from finalizing the tender in question of the other bidders. All these facts and series of events clearly reflects that not only the respondents ofÏcials but also respondent No. 6 are not acting in a fair and transparent manner and are making all efforts to misguide and mislead this Hon'ble Court by giving false afÏdavit which is a serious issue and requires detailed and discrete enquiry into the matter. 14. Mr. Dadariya further submits that the respondent No. 6 had just made a casual submission that the documents fails to satisfy the bare minimum requirement of being in order even in terms of prescribed format, whereas, the documents submitted by the petitioner is in prescribed format and on the other hand the fact remains that the documents submitted by the respondent No. 6 are infact neither in prescribed format nor in order. The subject tender is online tender and what ever is reflected in the online NIT in the ofÏcial portal is taken as it is. The petitioner relied on the online NIT and submitted its bid mentioning whatever is reflected in the online NIT. The online NIT floated by the respondents in the portal reflect NIT No. 4/2024-25 under the description, further the online NIT does not reflects the letter number as such there was no occasion to mention the same. Since the subject Tender being online Tender the person from any corner of the country who fulfills the requisite criteria can submit its bid online and if does not mentions the letter number there is no occasion to fill the same on their own. On scrutiny of the documents submitted in Envelop-A, it was found that the petitioner has quoted wrong NIT number in the afÏdavit and further in the footer also, the NIT number is wrongly been mentioned /quoted in afÏdavit and Annexure-J and has thus rejected the bid on 15 vague grounds just in order to cover their own wrong. Infact, the respondents ofÏcials are trying to save their skin by shifting the blame on the petitioner. Further there is no requirement of mentioning the letter number in the afÏdavit and Annexure-J. Even otherwise, the respondent No. 6 has not referred to any terms and condition in the NIT making the same mandatory. It is further submitted that submission and scrutiny of Annexure-J submitted in envelop A of the technical bid is merely an intermediate stage wherein after formally filling the details of the NIT number, system tender number, name of work, name of the bidders and the signature of the witnesses are taken without mentioning the date of execution of the said document and it only after the bid is accepted the same is finalized and all the requirements are entered in detail at the time of the execution of the agreement. Even the witnesses of the buyer are required to be left blank which will be filled at the time of signing and execution of agreement. It is only, thereafter, at some later point of time, the said documents become part of the agreement and dated identically as that of the agreement. As such, no mention of the name and details of the witnesses will not make the same defective, so as to disqualify the petitioner, as said documents is yet to be finalized at the later point of time. The petitioner has not received the letter dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure R/4) till date as stated by the learned State counsel. It is specifically and vehemently denied that the petitioner was duly informed vide letter dated 06.11.2024 about the shortcomings in documents, even otherwise the said reasons have not been uploaded in the website showing the aforesaid grounds and reasons for disqualification. 15. Mr. Dadariya, with regard to relieving Mr Parikshit Suryawanshi, submits that the same is contrary to their own transfer order, which very specifically says that the order would come in effect with immediate 16 effect and further it states that the transferred ofÏcials should necessarily be relieved within 10 days. Further, the State had filed detailed instruction on e-tender issued on 01.03.2019 which is an ofÏcial document. Clause 13 of the said instructions filed as Annexure R-2, specifically prescribes that the tender committee is constituted under the chairmanship of Executive Engineer for evaluation and scrutiny of the technical bid of the bid submitted by the bidders. It further prescribes that the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services will be Chairman, Divisional Accountant will be Secretary and Senior Sub Divisional OfÏcer of the Division will be nominated as Member of the tender committee. It no-where states that Incharge Executive Engineer who is substantively holding post lower in rank and working in substantive capacity as Assistant Engineer/SDO can be nominated as Chairman of the said committee. As such the constitution of committee itself is invalid and the decision taken by the same is non est being contrary to their own circular. 16. The facts of the case, so far it relates to WPC No. 5766/2024, 5812/2024 and 5818/2024 are concerned, the petitioner herein is common. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm and a duly registered contractor under the Public Works Department (PWD), Chhattisgarh, holding the Unique Identification Number CGeR06820. In addition, the petitioner holds a valid electrical contractor license (License No. 28/2640/A), issued on 14.03.2023 by the Chhattisgarh Licensing Board for Electricity. Vide letter dated 04.10.2024, the respondent No. 2, issued Brief Zonal Tender Invitation Notice No. 05/2024 (First Invitation) for electrification contracts in three Blocks-Gaurela, Pendra, and Marwahi, with each block allocated a total estimated contract value of Rs. 25 lakhs, covering individual electrification projects capped at Rs. 10 17 lakhs per project. Three distinct Notices Inviting Tender (NITs) were issued for the electrification works in each of the three blocks-Gaurela, Pendra, and Marwahi. The petitioner duly participated in all three NITs. 17. For "Block Gaurela", vide NIT No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 159554, issued by the Panchayat & Rural Development Department (Rural Engineering Service), online percentage-rate tenders were invited for the work of Zonal Tender for Different Types of Electric Works, with each individual work not exceeding the cost of Rs. 10 lakh for Block Gaurela. For "Block Marwahi", vide NIT No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 159556, issued by the Panchayat & Rural Development Department (Rural Engineering Service), online percentage-rate tenders were invited for the work of Zonal Tender for Different Types of Electric Works, with each individual work not exceeding the cost of Rs. 10 lakh for Block Marwahi. For "Block Pendra", vide NIT No. 5/2024-25 & System Tender No. 159555, issued by the Panchayat & Rural Development Department (Rural Engineering Service), online percentage-rate tenders were invited for the work of Zonal Tender for Different Types of Electric Works, with each individual work not exceeding the cost of Rs. 10 lakh for Block Pendra. The probable amount of contract was Rs. 25.00 lakhs, with an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 18,750.00, and a total time allowed for completion of 12 months from the reckoned date, including the rainy season. As per the details provided on the ofÏcial Chhattisgarh Government Integrated E- Procurement Portal, the tender description specified the nature of work. The bid submission was open from 4.10.2024, with the bid due date set for 21.10.2024 and the scheduled bid opening was on 24.10.2024. Further instructions provided by the Executive Engineer's ofÏce required bidders to submit two separate envelopes: Envelope "A" containing the 18 security deposit, integrity pact, and afÏdavit, and Envelope "B" containing the technical documents. 18. As per Mr. Ankit Singhal, the petitioner submitted its bids in full compliance with the eligibility criteria as specified in the Tender Conditions. The petitioner submitted all required documents, including the security deposit, integrity pact, afÏdavit, and technical documents, as outlined in the tender notice. All submissions were made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender, in the prescribed format and within the stipulated deadlines. The petitioner also submitted three separate afÏdavits dated 20.10.2024, afÏrming that he was submitting the tender for System Tender No. 159554, 159556 and 159555, NIT No. 5/24-25, for the work of Zonal Tender (Different Types of Electric Works), each work not exceeding Rs. 10.00 lakhs, for Block Gaurela, Marwahi and Pendra. The afÏdavits confirmed that all required documents had been duly submitted as part of the tender application. The petitioner also submitted the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact, in the form of Annexure-J, as required by the tender conditions. In the afÏdavits dated 20.10.2024 and the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact submitted by the petitioner, the name of the work, the NIT number (5/24-25), and the system tender numbers (159554, 159556 and 159555) were clearly mentioned, ensuring full compliance with the tender conditions. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, on 4.11.2024, the petitioner received an email communication from the CG e-Proc System Team informing that the Petitioner's organization had been rejected during Part-1 (Envelope B) evaluation (i.e. the techno-commercial evaluation) for Tender No. 159554, 159556 and 159555 of the Rural Engineering Services (RES) department. The e-mail cited the following reason for rejection: "Due to AfÏdavit me work name prarup anusar nahi, Do baar 19 upload hai. Annexure J me work name prarup anusar nahi NIT no nahi likha hai." The email further stated that, as a result, the petitioner would not be allowed to participate in the price bid opening for this tender. 19. Mr. Singhal submits that the said rejection e-mail dated 04.11.2024 sent by the by the CG e-Proc System Team, along with the reasoning provided for the rejection, is completely contrary to the records and arbitrary. No proper reasoning has been provided regarding the alleged mistake made by the Petitioner. The email simply states vague and unclear grounds for rejection, without specifying the exact nature of the supposed error in the documents submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner had ensured that all documents were properly filled and submitted in accordance with the tender requirements, including the clear mention of the work name, NIT number, and system tender number in both the afÏdavit and the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact. Additionally, the NIT number 05/24-25, as well as the system tender numbers 159554, 159556 and 159555 are explicitly stated at the bottom of all pages of both documents, ensuring that the submission was in complete compliance with the tender requirements. Despite this, the rejection email failed to acknowledge these facts and instead cited vague and incorrect reasons for the petitioner's disqualification. On 05.11.2024, the petitioner wrote to the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, regarding the disqualification from tenders and requested clarification on the correct format. The petitioner also expressed his concerns about favouritism, stating that tenders were cancelled without valid reason. On the same day i.e 05.11.2024, the petitioner also submitted a claim objection regarding respondent No. 3 M/s. Shivay Construction's technical documents. The petitioner highlighted deficiencies in Shivay Construction's registration certificate, 20 which lacked the registration authority's signature, discrepancies between the works and amounts listed in Annexures 1 and 2, and a mismatch in the turnover certificate data. The petitioner requested that M/s. Shivay Construction be declared ineligible based on these issues. On 06.11.2024, respondent No. 2 replied, stating that the petitioner's disqualification was due to the failure to follow the specified format for the name of the work and the omission of the NIT number in Annexure-J, as outlined in Appendix 2.10 of the tender invitation notice. In a separate response on the same day i.e. 06.11.2024, respondent No. 2 addressed the petitioner's objections to respondent No. 3 Shivay Construction's documents, alleging that the registration certificate had been verified online, and the documents were in accordance with the required format. Hence, the claim objection was dismissed, and Shivay Construction's technical documents were accepted. 20. According to Mr. Singhal, total five parties participated in the technical bid process for the project, namely, Gourav Verma, Bilaspur, Rajendra Shukla, Bilaspur, Vipin Jain, Pendra; M/s. Alok Agrawal (Petitioner), and M/s. Shivay Construction (Respondent No. 3). Out of these five participants, only the technical bid of M/s. Shivay Construction, has been accepted. Consequently, respondent No. 3 has become the sole contender in the price bid and the work order has also been issued to him. 21. It is further submitted by Mr. Singhal that the ofÏcial portal reveals that the technical bid submitted by M/s. Shivay Construction was accepted despite a similar approach to naming the work in its afÏdavit and Pre- Contract Integrity Pact as adopted by the petitioner. The only difference is that the petitioner has mentioned the work name in English, whereas M/s Shivay Construction has mentioned the work name in Hindi, even 21 though the NIT specifies the work name in English. This inconsistency highlights unjust discrimination against the petitioner although no substantive error was made. In addition to this, respondent No. 3, has been awarded a contract worth Rs. 1,55,00,000. However, as per the 15% solvency requirement, Respondent No. 3 should have provided a solvency certificate of Rs. 23,25,000, whereas the submitted certificate only shows Rs. 20,00,000/-, indicating a discrepancy in the documents filed. The action of the respondent authorities is completely arbitrary and shows favoritism, as the petitioner had made substantial compliance with all the requirements set forth in the tender documents. The rejection appears to be based on an alleged hyper-technical ground of formatting, which should be avoided, as it disregards the fact that the petitioner had met the essential criteria and submitted the necessary documents in accordance with the tender conditions. In any case, the petitioner should not be penalized for minor or technical discrepancies, particularly when the overall intent of compliance was fully demonstrated. The petitioner has a good chance of winning the price bid if he is given the opportunity, as he has demonstrated the capability and qualifications required for the work. 22. Separate returns have been filed by the respondent/State to all the three writ petitions i.e. WPC No. 5766/2024, 5812/2024 and 5818/2024 denying the averments made by the petitioner stating that as per the conditions mentioned in the NIT, the bidders / contractors were required to submit their ofÒine bids in Envelope-A containing EMD, integrity pact and afÏdavit and Envelope-B containing technical documents till 23.10.2024 at 17.30 hours and the date for opening was 24.12.2024 at 12:30 hours. The ofÏce of the Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh has issued detailed instruction on e-tender on 01.03.2019 wherein it has 22 been specifically provided that the interested parties have to submit tender in 3 envelopes i.e. Envelope - A containing the integrity pact, security deposit and afÏdavit whereas Envelope B containing the technical documents and technical bids and Envelope C containing the financial bid It has further specifically provided in the instruction that at the first instance, the Envelope A would be scrutinized and thereafter only the Envelope B (technical bid) of only those bidders would be opened whose Envelope - A has been found in order. Clause No. 1.12 of Appendix 2.10 states about the instructions for guidelines of tenders and sub-clause (i) prescribes clearly that the tender will be liable to be rejected out-rightly if the tenderer proposes any alternations in the work specified, in the time allowed for carrying out the work or any conditions thereof. Meaning thereby that the tenderer is required to mention the details of the works or tender No. etc. as is reflected in the tender documents. This condition can be seen from perusal of the document filed ate page No. 24. 23. It is further submitted by Mr. Thakur that in response to the aforesaid NIT, as many as total 5 bidders / contractors participated in the tender proceedings by submitting their tender documents. A tender committee was constituted which opened all the bids received for the aforesaid work on the scheduled date i.e. 24.10.2024. During the course of scrutiny of the documents submitted in Envelope - A, it was found that the petitioner company wrongly quoted the name of the works as mentioned in the tender documents in the afÏdavit because a bare perusal of the afÏdavit submitted by the petitioner in Envelope -A which has been filed at Annexure P/9 would clearly show that the said afÏdavit only bears the system tender No., NIT No., and the name of work in English and nowhere the letter No. mentioned in Annexure P/7 was ever 23 quoted in the said afÏdavit which is contrary to the condition contained in clause No. 1.12 of Appendix 2.10 which clearly stipulates that no alternation in the work specified is permissible and as per the same, the tenderer was required to mention/quote the letter no., NIT No. system No. and name of work as it is as mentioned in Annexure P/7 which the petitioner company failed to quote. During the further scrutiny of documents contained in Envelope -A, it was found that the same mistake as was done in afÏdavit has been committed by the petitioner in giving details in Annexure-J and further the petitioner has not quoted the letter no in Annexure-J. The private respondent i.e. the respondent No. 3 herein filed afÏdavit and Annexure J in Envelope -A in which the letter No., NIT No. System No. and name of the work has clearly been quoted as mentioned in Annexure P/7. Out of 5 tenderers / bidders, the tender committee, after scrutiny of the documents submitted in Envelope -A, found the respondent No. 3 eligible for further process because the documents submitted by it were in order and as per specifications required. Thereafter, the technical documents submitted in Envelope-B by the respondent No. 3 were also found in order and therefore, the Tender Committee declared the respondent No. 3 herein eligible for further process. After declaring the tenderers either eligible or ineligible for further process, as the case may be, the same was duly sent through its given mail addressed to the bidders / contractors and in the instant case, vide impugned email communication (Annexure P/1), it has been communicated that the bid submitted by the petitioner company has been rejected at the stage of scrutiny of Envelope -A documents contained EMD, afÏdavit and Annexure J (integrity pact). After declaring the respondent No. 3 eligible for further process, the documents with regard to financial bid submitted by the respondent No. 3 were also 24 found in order and therefore, the Tender Committee declared the respondent No. 3 as successful bidder and recommended its name for awarding the work and based upon the said recommendation of the tender committee, the work order dated 08.11.2024 was issued to the respondent No. 3. 24. Mr. Thakur further submits that so far as the representation / claim and objection before the competent authority is concerned, the petitioner was duly informed vide letter dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P/13) about the shortcomings in the documents submitted by the petitioner. Later on, vide letter dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P/14), the objection raised by the petitioner was duly satisfied by the respondent authorities in which it has been categorically stated that the respondent No. 3 is a Class C category contractor registered with the Department of Public Works and its registration certificate is already available in the ofÏcial website / portal of the Department of Public Works. It has further been stated that the documents submitted by the respondent No. 3 are in accordance with the norms contained in clause No 3.9 of Appendix -2.10 and it has further been stated that the certificate showing the turnover of the respondent No. 3 is matched with the data provided in Annexure -1 and are found in order. So far as the contention of the petitioner company with regard to solvency requirement is concerned, as per clause No. 3.8.1 of Appendix 2.10, the bidder has to submit a financial capacity certificate which shall not be older than 12 months from the date of application with 15% of amount put to tender. The tender amount was Rs. 25 lakh for each work and as per the said tender amount, the solvency certificate of financial capacity of Rs. 3.75 lakh which is 15% of total tender amount, was required and in case for all three works, the solvency certificate of financial capacity of total Rs. 11.25 lakh was 25 required whereas the respondent No. 3 herein submitted the solvency certificate of financial capacity of Rs. 20 lakh which is above the required capacity. Hence, the contention of the petitioner company that the respondent no 3 submitted insufÏcient solvency certificate, is vehemently and categorically denied. 25. The respondent No. 3-M/s. Shivay Construction has also filed its return denying the contentions of the petitioners. 26. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in all the three petitions to the return filed by the respondent/State as well as the respondent No. 3 stating that the claim of the State is incorrect to the effect that the petitioner's AfÏdavit and Annexure J (Pre-Contract Integrity Pact) should be rejected due to an "alteration" of the work name, as the Petitioner mentioned the work name in English instead of Hindi. This assertion is fundamentally incorrect. It is critical to distinguish between an "alteration" and a mere "formatting" issue. The petitioner has not altered the name of the work; the name has been accurately stated in English, as it appears in the ofÏcial portal of the website. The mere use of the English language instead of Hindi can only be categorized as a minor formatting difference, which does not, in any way, constitute an alteration of the work itself. Alteration refers to a change in the substance of the work, which has not occurred in this case. The respondents' reliance on Clause 1.12 of Appendix 2.10 is misplaced and only an afterthought. The Clause 1.12 (1) clearly stipulates that the tender will be rejected if it proposes any "alterations" in the work specified. Since the petitioner did not alter the work but merely used the English version of the name as provided on the ofÏcial website, the same cannot be termed as "alteration" of work. It is also important to mention here that the impugned e-mail communication dated 04.11.2024 does not mention 26 any violation of Clause 1.12 of Appendix 2.10 as a reason for rejecting the Petitioner's bid. Furthermore, the summary sheet prepared by the tender committee also fails to cite any violation of Clause 1.12 as the basis for the rejection. This omission clearly indicates that the reference to Clause 1.12 is an afterthought, with the State now attempting to justify its arbitrary decision by introducing this clause. Furthermore, the tender documents and Appendix 2.10 does not provide a prescribed format for the AfÏdavit. Therefore, there is no basis for alleging a formatting error also. The Petitioner's submission in English complies with the tender requirements, and the objection on this ground is unfounded. AfÏdavit and Annexure-J, it is submitted that the Petitioner had, in fact, provided the System No. and NIT No. in both documents, as detailed in the main petition. In any event, the non-mentioning of the system No., NIT No. and letter No. was not a condition under Clause 1.12 of Appendix 2.10. Furthermore, this is a hyper-technical approach that disregards the substantial compliance demonstrated by the Petitioner, and such minor discrepancies should not have been prioritized over the substantive compliance of the bid. 27. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 28. The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions are that their bids have been rejected / declared disqualified. According to the State/ respondents as well as the private respondent No. 6 {in WPC No. 5741/2024} and respondent No. 3 {in other three petitions}, since the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions of the NIT, the bids of the petitioners have rightly been rejected. 29. On going through the documents appended with the petition, it is apparent that there are some minor errors which are not so fatal so as to 27 decide the capacity / suitability of a candidate for participating in the tender process. If the State was so keen to be so precise that any minor variation or discrepancy should have been dealt with strictly and no leniency should have been shown towards any candidate/bidder, the State should have been equally cautious that the bids which of private respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 3, as aforesaid also have certain lacunas / discrepancies which makes the said bidder ineligible to participate in the further tender process. Their bids also ought to have been rejected. 30. The approach adopted by the State is hypertechnical when it is in respect of the petitioners but very surprisingly, the said hypertechnical approach has been given a go-bye when it is in regard to the private respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 3, as aforesaid. The petitioners have successfully pointed out certain defects in the tender documents of the private respondents also who have been declared successful and awarded the work order. 31. Admittedly, the scope of judicial intervention in tender matter is to a very limited extent. The Courts should normally exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matter unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. The present are the cases where the arbitrariness on the part of the State is writ large as on the one hand, the defects as has been pointed out by the petitioners with respect to the bids of the private successful bidders have been ignored, but the minor clerical defects of the petitioners, which may not be of much relevance to assess the suitability of the petitioners as to whether they were capable of performing the work in question, have been scrutinized in a hypertechnical manner. The respondent/State ought to have seen as to 28 whether the minor defects which are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, have any impact on assessment of their suitability or capability. 32.
Decision
In view of the above, this Court is of the view that equity demands that since there are certain clerical defects in the tender document of both the petitioner as well as the private respondents, no favour should be extended to any of the parties and the tender/NIT floated by the respondent/State as well as the work order issued in consequence thereof, deserves to be quashed reserving liberty to issue fresh tender, if they so desire. 33. It is ordered accordingly. The tender/NIT in question in these petitions as well as the work orders issued to the successful bidders/private respondents are quashed. However, the respondent/State is at liberty to float fresh tenders/NIT, if so desired. 34. Resultantly, these petitions stand allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.22 11:28:25 +0530