Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 63
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK SECURITY SERVICES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/30/2025
Judicial review in tender matters requires restraint, focusing on arbitrariness or bias, while upholding fairness and transparency in public procurement processes.
Headnote:(A) Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 - Tendering process - Principles of fairness and transparency in public procurement - The petitioner challenged the declaration of the respondent firm as L1 in the tender process due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions, specifically lacking a live registration certificate and requisite work experience, arguing it undermined fairness and transparency (Paras 2, 5, 8, 9).
(B) Judicial review in tender matters - The court emphasized the restraint required in judicial review, stating that interference is limited to instances of arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias (Paras 13, 14).
(C) Eligibility criteria in public tenders - The court noted that both bidders were found eligible as per the terms of the NIT, and the respondent firm had provided sufficient evidence of work experience (Paras 11, 12, 15).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner firm contested the eligibility of the respondent firm in a tender process for supplying labour, arguing that the latter did not meet the mandatory requirements set forth in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) (Paras 3, 4).
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and upheld the decision of the respondent authorities to declare the respondent firm as L1, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in tender matters (Paras 15, 16).
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the respondent firm’s eligibility and the transparency of the tender process (Paras 9, 10).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of judicial review in tender matters necessitate restraint and that the decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias, confirming the eligibility of the respondent firm (Paras 13, 14).
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
13.01.2025
1. Heard Mr.Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 & 2/State, Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Dr.Sudeep Agrawal and Mr.Vikas Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court mayh kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wit directing the respondent authorities to declare that the respondent firm is ineligible to participate in the tender process due to non-compliance with the mandatory conditions.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to quash and set aside the declaration of the respondent firm as L1 in the tender process (Annexure P/1) and set aside the impugned missive rejecting the objection of petitioner (Annexure P/9), as it is contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender and the principles of fairness and transparency and direct the respondent authorities to award the contract and issue work order to the petitioner firm.
10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold the declaration of respondent firm as eligible in technical bid and rejecting the objection of petitioner vide Annexure P/9, to be illegal and arbitrary .
10.4 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.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that notice inviting tender has been floated by the Municipal Council, Bodri in the E Procurement Website for selection of placement agency for supply of labour of different categories (Skilled, Semi Skilled, and Unskilled Municipal Department) on 03.07.2024. however in the said NIT only the petitioner firm has bided for the contract, consequently the said NIT was cancelled and new NIT was issued over same subject on 13.08.2024. The petitioner firm and the firm of the private respondent has participated in the said Notice Inviting Tender and has bided for the contract by submitting their requisite documents as mandated by the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender. Thereafter, the petitioner duly participated in the said bid in accordance with the online term and condition. The petitioner firm duly submitted documents as mentioned in the notice inviting tender. The said submission has to be in conformity with the terms and conditions for tender as enumerated therein.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that one of the mandatory requisite for participation is expressly provided in Clause 11 of the NIT which is reproduced as under:-
Upon observing the technical bid submitted by the respondent firm, the petitioner duly acknowledged that the respondent firm do not possess the live registration certificate which was mandatory required from the Department of Labour.
5. On 26.09.2024, the petitioner firm, upon reviewing the digitally uploaded documents of the respondent firm, raised an objection. The objection asserted that the respondent firm had failed to comply with the requirement set forth in Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender, which mandates that a bidding firm must possess a valid, active registration certificate issued by the Labour Department. The petitioner firm further contended that the respondent firm lacks the requisite work experience of completing projects valued at ₹50 lakhs in government, semi-government, or state instrumentalities. Consequently, the petitioner argued that the respondent firm should be disqualified. On 30.09.2024, despite being aware that the respondent firm did not possess the mandatory documents, the respondent authority proceeded to open the fina
