Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased toquash and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby the technical bid of the petitioner submitted pursuant NIT to No. 1910/Tender/Rural Services/2025-26 dated 23.12.2025 has been rejected;

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased toquash and set aside the Letter of Acceptance dated 30.01.2026 (AnnexureP/2) and the consequential Work Order dated02.02.2026 (Annexure P/3) issued in favour of Respondent No. 4;

(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased todirect the respondent authorities to declare the technical bid of the petitioner as responsive and eligible and to proceed further with the tender process strictly in accordance with law;

(iv) Or, In alternative, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to cancel the tender process, bearing NIT No. 1910/Tender/Rural Services/2025-26 dated 23.12.2025 (annexure P/2) as only one bidder has been found successful in the technical evaluation, in accordance with the guidelines issued by PWD (Annexure P/9).

(v) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No. 1910/Tender/Rural Services/2025-26 dated 23.12.2025 for construction of the District Panchayat Building at Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Development Block Sarangarh, District Sarangarh, with an estimated cost of Rs.3,01,32,000/-. The NIT prescribed various conditions for participation in the tender process, including submission of a duly signed Pre-Contract Integrity Pact as per Clause 11 of the Special Conditions. The petitioner, being eligible, participated in the tender process and submitted all required documents including a duly signed Pre-Contract Integrity Pact in the prescribed format. However, upon opening of the technical bids, the petitioner’s bid was rejected through a system-generated email dated 16.01.2026 on the ground that the “name of work” was not mentioned in the Integrity Pact. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.01.2026 explaining that the requirement under Clause 11 was fully complied with and that the Integrity Pact had been uploaded specifically against the subject tender ID. Despite the said representation, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 21.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid on the grounds that the name of the work was not mentioned in Annexure-J, the document was typed instead of being downloaded from the portal, and that the footer was not written at the end of the document. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these alleged defects are purely hyper-technical and inconsequential, particularly when the contents of the Integrity Pact were identical to the prescribed format and the document had been uploaded in relation to the specific tender. The petitioner further submits that in previous tenders floated by the same department, bids were accepted even when the name of work was not mentioned in the Integrity Pact. It is further submitted that only two bidders participated in the tender, namely the petitioner and respondent No.4. After rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid, respondent No.4 remained the sole bidder. As per prevailing guidelines followed in civil works in the State of Chhattisgarh, when only a single bidder qualifies in the first call of tender, the process