Phaloudi Construction And Infrastructures Pvt Ltd., A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 2013 v. 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Water Resources
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48235-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4944 of 2025 Phaloudi Construction And Infrastructures Pvt Ltd., A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 2013, Having Its Registered Office At 203, Panama Tower, Near, Hotel Crown Palace, Kanchan Bagh, Indore, 452001 Through Its Authorized Signatory, Cherub Rai S/o Hiralal Ratre, Aged About 25 Occupation Authorised Representative Of The Petitioner Company, O/a 203, Panama Tower, Near, Hotel Crown Palace, Kanchan Bagh, Indore M.P ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Basin, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.19 18:38:21 +0530 For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 Issue writ in nature of the certiorari and quash the mail/letter of disqualification issued by the respondent No. 2, dated September 10, 2025. 10.2 To issue writ in nature of the mandamus and direct the respondents to open and consider the financial bid of the petitioner for NIT No.: 02/SAC/2025-26, System Tender No. 173473 dated 11.08.2025. 10.3 To direct the respondents to award the contract to the petitioner if its bid is found to be the lowest and otherwise in accordance with the terms of the tender. 10.4 To award the costs of this petition to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and 3 circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition challenges the petitioner’s disqualification in Tender No. 173473 (First Call), issued by the Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, for the “Construction of Head Work of Lamti Feeder Minor Tank Scheme.” The total estimated value of the contract was Rs.13,722.98 Lakhs, with the bid submission deadline fixed as 01.09.2025. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, being a duly registered and qualified contractor, submitted its bid electronically through the Chhattisgarh e-Procurement Portal. The bid included all mandatory documents, such as pre-qualification documents (Envelope B) and the financial bid (Envelope C). As per the tender requirements, a scanned copy of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), and a scanned copy of the Demand Draft (DD) for the cost of the tender document were uploaded in Envelope A. The petitioner, however, received an email on 10.09.2025 from the Chief Engineer (Tender Cell) intimating its disqualification from the tender. The stated grounds for disqualification were: (i) submission of the EMD in the form of an FDR instead of a DD, allegedly in violation of Clause 2.13(b) of the tender, and (ii) non- submission of the original DD for the tender document cost offline by the scheduled deadline, allegedly in violation of Clause 2.11(ix). In response, the petitioner submitted a representation asserting that the 4 portal allowed submission of EMD via either DD or FDR, and that physical submission of documents was required only from the lowest bidder, which had not been declared at the time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the tender platform explicitly provided options for both DD and FDR for submission of EMD. Additionally, the petitioner contended that there was a conflict between Clause 2.16, which prescribed an 18-month validity period for bids, and the limited validity period of a standard DD. With respect to physical submission of documents, reliance was placed on Clauses 8 and 10, which required submission of originals only from the lowest bidder. The petitioner submitted that the respondents’ failure to consider these clarifications before opening other financial bids was arbitrary, illegal, and caused irreparable prejudice. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioner’s representation was considered by the competent authority. The Pre-Qualification Committee examined the documents in Envelope A on 10.09.2025. Out of seven bidders, five were declared qualified, while two bidders were disqualified. The disqualified bidders were informed and given two days to submit explanations or clarifications. While R.R. Constructions & Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, successfully justified the submission of FDR due to portal options and the longer validity requirement, the petitioner’s representation submitted on 12.09.2025 was rejected. The Committee observed that Clauses 2.13(b) and 2.15 mandated EMD strictly in the form of a Bank Draft, and 5 Clause 9 of Volume-I required submission of the original DD for the tender document cost by 01.09.2025, which the petitioner had failed to do. Accordingly, the petitioner remained disqualified. 7. We have carefully examined the pleadings, considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, and perused the materials on record. 8. It is apparent that the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the tender. Clause 9 of Volume-I explicitly required submission of the original DD for the tender document cost to the office of the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Water Resources Department, Raipur (C.G.) by 01.09.2025. Clause 2.13(b) and Clause 2.15 of Volume-II strictly mandated that the EMD for out-of-state bidders be submitted in the form of a Bank Draft. The petitioner’s submission of an FDR and failure to submit the original DD constituted non- compliance with these non-negotiable provisions. 9. The petitioner’s arguments regarding contradictions in the tender clauses or the functionalities of the e-procurement portal cannot override the express and mandatory instructions contained in the tender documents. Submission of EMD in the prescribed form and timely submission of the original DD were clear conditions precedent for participation in the tender. Failure to comply with these conditions provides a valid and lawful basis for disqualification. 10. The Pre-Qualification Committee duly considered the petitioner’s representations and applied the tender provisions consistently. There is 6 no evidence of arbitrariness, discrimination, or procedural irregularity. The fact that the Committee accepted FDR submission in the case of R.R. Constructions & Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, while applying stricter scrutiny in the petitioner’s case, does not indicate arbitrariness, but reflects adherence to the conditions of the tender based on full compliance with all requirements. 11. On careful consideration of the facts, the record, and the applicable tender provisions, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to establish any violation of legal rights or procedural fairness. The disqualification was justified, lawful, and in accordance with the tender conditions. 12. In view of the foregoing, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan