Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 4990
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
M/s Shri Siddhi Vinayak Security Services – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Urban Administration And Development – Respondent
WPC No. 30 of 2025
For the Respondents:Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate No.1 and 2, Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Advocate No.3, Dr.Sudeep Agrawal, Mr.Vikas Dubey, No.4 Advocates
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides, upholding the principles of fairness and transparency.
Headnote:(A) Public Procurement - Principles of Fairness and Transparency - Writ Petition filed for quashing declaration of respondent as L1 in tender process due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions of eligibility, specifically lacking live registration certificate and requisite work experience. (Paras 2, 3, 10, 12, 15)
(B) Judicial Review - Courts exercise restraint in tender matters and do not substitute their judgment for that of the authority unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the eligibility of the respondent firm in a tender process, arguing that the respondent lacked necessary documentation and experience, leading to an unfair advantage.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the tender process, stating that the respondent firm met the eligibility criteria and that the petitioner’s objections were unfounded.
Issues: The main issues were the compliance of the respondent firm with the tender requirements and the legality of the tendering process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that judicial intervention in tender matters is limited and should only occur in cases of clear illegality or arbitrariness, affirming the integrity of the tender process.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial restraint in tender matters. (Para 14) |
| 2. writ petition dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 15 , 16) |
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:-
“11. नि(cid:2)नि(cid:3)दाकार को ठेके दार पजं ीय(cid:2) के साथ ्ቦम नि(cid:3)भाग से जीनि(cid:3)त ्ቚमाण प्ቔ ्ቚस्तुत कर(cid:2)ा होगा, पंजीय(cid:2) ्ቚमाण-प्ቔ, पे(cid:2)का्ቑ(cid:30), नि(cid:31)(cid:2)
(cid:2)ंबर, ई.एस.आई.सी. ए(cid:3)ं ई.पी.एफ. का पंजीय(cid:2) हो(cid:2)ा अनि(cid:2)(cid:3)ाय(cid:30) ह।ै "
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 petitione
