Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11061
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
M/S NIKU KEDIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC No. 1786 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay Agrawal
For the Respondents: Shashank Thakur, Amrito Das
A petition challenging the rejection of a bid in a tender process becomes infructuous if the competent authority cancels the tender itself during the pendency of the litigation.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Tender Process - Cancellation of Tender - Where the tender in question is cancelled by the competent authority during the pendency of a petition challenging the rejection of a technical bid, the grievances of the petitioner no longer survive and the petition is rendered infructuous. (Para 3, 4)
Issues: Whether the petition survives after the cancellation of the tender in question.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the petition and the specific prayers for quashing bid rejection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition rendered infructuous due to the cancellation of the underlying tender. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHANMORLE MORLE Date: 2026.04.20 18:26:38 +0530
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to set-aside/quash the technical BID rejection dated 23.03.2026 is annexed as (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 related to BID No. GEM/2026/B/7257306.
10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to set-aside/quash the rejection/disqualification dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Respondent No. 3 and the financial Bid of the petitioner may be opened.
10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 not to issued work order to the private respondent No. 4.
10.4 That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the tender in question itself has been cancelled by the competent authority, and therefore, the grievances raised in the present petition no longer survive for adjudication.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present petition has been rendered infructuous.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
