Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
M/s. Shraddha Construction Company Represented Through Its Partner Satish Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Sedhu Ram Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) - Respondent
WPC No. 482 of 2025
Decided On :
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Tender process - Disqualification of bidders - Petitioner challenged disqualification from tender process for failing to meet eligibility criteria as per NIT - Court emphasized the need for transparency and fairness in tender evaluations - Respondent-CSIDC justified disqualification based on non-compliance with mandatory tender conditions and failure to provide required documentation - Court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating bids and found no arbitrariness in the decision-making process. (Paras 11, 12, 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a construction firm, was disqualified from participating in multiple tenders issued by CSIDC for various infrastructure projects despite fulfilling eligibility criteria. The disqualification was communicated via email without detailed reasoning, leading to claims of arbitrary action and violation of Article 14. (Paras 11, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria as outlined in the tender documents, particularly regarding the submission of required forms and documentation. The decision to disqualify was deemed justified and not arbitrary. (Paras 29, 30)
Issues: The main issues included whether the disqualification was arbitrary and if the tendering authority acted within its rights in evaluating the bids. (Paras 29, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authority inviting bids has the discretion to set criteria and evaluate qualifications, and unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafide intent, the court should refrain from interfering in the tender process. (Paras 31, 32)
Result: All petitions dismissed. (Para 35)
Order :
(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)
1. Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner {in WPC No. 482/2025, 548/2025, 550/2025 and WPC No. 551/2025}, Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner {in WPC No. 843/2025, 848/2025 and 853/2025}. Also heard Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent-CSIDC.
2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties so far as WPC No.482/2025, 548/2025, 550/2025 and 551/2025 are concerned. So far as WPC No. 843/2025, 848/2025 and 853/2025 are concerned, the petitioner was earlier granted time to file rejoinder to the return filed by the respondent-CSIDC, however, the petitioner has failed to do so and today again, he prays for grant of some more time for filing of the rejoinder. However, since the issue involved in all these petitions are identical, we proceed to hear the matter finally.
3. The petitioner {in WPC No. 482/2025} has prayed for the following relief(s):
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the disqualification of the petitioner and impugned email dated 14/01/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent department in the tender (NIT No. 20, Tender ref no. 20/CSIDC/EE/DIV.-1/2024-25 and Tender no. 163565 issued on 27/12/2024), (3rd call) for the Up- gradation, Renewal of BT Roads, Construction of RCC Drain, Providing and laying of 100mm dia D.I. pipe line and Street Light at I/A Kapan Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Annexure P/2), in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to reevaluate the tender process transparently and fairly in accordance with law and to provide the reason for the cancellation of the Petitioners bid and reconsideration of the same in a transparent and fair manner.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. The petitioner {in WPC No. 548/2025} has prayed for the following relief(s):
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the disqualification of the petitioner and impugned email dated 14/01/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent department in the tender (NIT No. 23, Tender ref no. CSIDC/EE/DIV.-II/2024-25/23 and Tender no. 163570 issued on 27/12/2024), (3rd call) for the Up- gradation of Infrastructure like Roads drain, water supply & Street light etc. at I/A Birkoni Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (Annexure P/2), in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to reevaluate the tender process transparently and fairly in accordance with law and to provide the reason for the cancellation of the Petitioners bid and reconsideration of the same in a transparent and fair manner.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
5. The petitioner {in WPC No. 550/2025} has prayed for the following relief(s):
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the disqualification of the petitioner and impugned email dated 14/01/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent department in the tender (NIT No. 19, Tender ref no. 19/CSIDC/EE/DIV.-1/2024-25 and Tender no. 163564 issued on 27/12/2024), (3rd call) for the Up- gradation, Strengthening of BT Roads, Construction of RCC Drain. Providing and laying of 100mm dia D.I. pipe line and Street Light at I/A Tifra Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) (A
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, the importance of punctilious and rigid enforcement of tender terms, and the uniform application of tender requirements to....
Important Point – Government Contract – Tender – Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during bidding process and that entire bidding process is carri....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
