AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

1. Heard.

2. The Director of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh Government, invited tender dated 18.4.2018, a copy of which is Annexure P/1. This was with the object of empanelment and award of contract of crop insurance to Insurance companies as part and parcel of the implementation of what is known as “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna “for the Kharif season for the year 2018. Some more details and terms and conditions of the NIT was putout on the website.

Details thereof are Annexure P/2.

3. As per the NIT, 21.5.2018 was the date when the bids were required to be submitted up-till 3:00 p.m. 4:00 pm of 21.5.2018 was fixed for opening of the technical bid and at 11.30 am, on 22.5.2018, the financial bid was required to be opened. Bids were invited for five Clusters of different geographical areas of the State. There were many bidders and on the basis of offers so made, the tenders were finalised on 22.5.2018.

4. In the present case, the petitioner namely Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited were found to be successful bidder for Cluster Nos. 2& 3. There is no problem so far as their bid being the lowest bid is concerned. The whole problem arose thereafter because the decision of the Tender Finalisation Committee dated 22.5.2018 came to be upturned by the State Level Committee, where they decided to cancel all bids for Cluster No.1, 2, 3 & 5. So far as cluster No.4 was concerned, the bids as received was decided to be finalised.

5. The dispute has arisen in the present case because the petitioner, who were initially successful bidder for Clusters Nos.2 & 3, were prevented or barred from consideration so far as bid for Cluster No.4 was concerned. The authorities relied on certain terms of the contract, which is part of the General Information and Guidelines and since that is the core issue of the dispute, the provision is reproduced hereunder :

“Selection of Insurance Company as Implementing Agency (IA):

One insurance company can be selected maximum for two cluster only through the bidding process and will be designated as the implementing agency for the said cluster. Each and every insurance company should submit their financial bid separately for each cluster in a separate envelope, mentioning the name of cluster on the envelope. No insurance company will be eligible for more than two cluster after finalization of bid. If any implementation agency win for two cluster then their financial bid for any other cluster shall not be open.”

Emphasis supplied

6. Getting back to the facts, since on 22.5.2018, the Tender Finalisation Committee took recourse to the above provisions and found that the petitioner was a successful bider for two of the Clusters namely Cluster Nos.2 & 3, therefore, their bid was not considered for any other cluster. Hence, the only bid which was left as part of the initial Notice Inviting Tender was in relation to cluster No.4 alone. On the date i.e. 24.5.2018, when the State Level Committee decided to go for a fresh NIT with regard to Cluster Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5, this petitioner had no contract in hand despite being successful bidder for two Clusters in the earlier exercise so done. Because of the bar created by the respondent authorities for considering the bid of the petitioner in relation to Cluster No.4, the petitioner decided to approach the High Court and seek direction upon the respondents that even their offer in relation to Cluster No.4 be considered.

7. Argument of learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the clause which created a bar against an Insurance Company for being considered for more than two Clusters no doubt operated on 22.5.2018, when all the bids were opened and the petitioner was found to be L-1 with regard to Cluster Nos.2 & 3. He would have had no grievance against his non-consideration with regard to the other three clusters provided the Tender Committee's decision in relation to the first NIT was accepted and acted upon. The entire facts and decision