The scope of judicial review in government tender matters is limited to the decision-making process; Courts act with restraint and generally do not interfere under Article 226 unless a decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or irrational.

NAFR

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

16.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Veer Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashwat Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to conduct a detailed inquiry into the entire tender process under Tender No. 5313 dated 23.02.2026, particularly regarding the completeness and validity of documents submitted by Respondent No.3, the criteria and procedure adopted for evaluation, compliance_with tender conditions and whether a level playing field was ensured for all bidders, and to submit the inquiry report before this Hon'ble Court within such time as may be deemed fit.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to withhold the issuance of the work order in favour of private Respondent No.3 till the completion of the inquiry and till further orders of this Hon'ble Court.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

3. Facts of the case are that the Respondent Company, namely Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), is an undertaking of the State of Chhattisgarh. On 23.02.2026, Respondent No. 1 issued a tender notice inviting e-bids under Tender No. 5313 dated 23.02.2026 from interested individuals/agencies for engagement of manpower through outsourcing for the Deorbija Distribution Center under Respondent No. 2, i.e., Executive Engineer (O&M), CSPDCL Division, Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.). The last date and time for submission of e-bids was 14.03.2026 at 5:00 PM, and the date of opening of the bids was 15.03.2026. Only those contractors possessing valid GST registration were eligible to participate in the said e-tender process through the online e-bidding portal of CSPDCL. Manual tenders were not accepted.

4. The the Petitioner, being eligible, participated in the aforesaid tender process and duly submitted his bid through the prescribed e-bidding procedure. On 15.03.2026, the tender was opened by the respondent authorities. However, the process was not conducted in a transparent manner, and the contract was arbitrarily awarded to the private Respondent No. 3. The tender process conducted by the respondents lacked transparency, and the Petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that the documents submitted by Respondent No. 3 were either incomplete or invalid, and/or that the evaluation criteria and procedure were not followed in a fair, transparent, and impartial manner.

5. On 08.04.2026, the Petitioner submitted a written complaint to Respondent No. 1 seeking an inquiry into the aforesaid tender process. In the complaint, the Petitioner stated that under Tender No. 10-30/2025-26/PUR/5313 dated 23.02.2026, the private Respondent No. 3, namely M/s W N Electricals, had been declared as L1 (lowest bidder). The Petitioner raised concerns requiring clarification to ensure transparency and fairness, including:

(i) whether the documents submitted by Respondent No. 3 were complete and valid;

(ii) the criteria and procedure adopted during the tender evaluation process;

(iii) whether all applicable rules and conditions