Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

14.05.2026

1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Sameer Uraon, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents/State.

2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

“I. A writ and/ or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities concerned pertaining to tender no. 181787 of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case.

ii. That the Hon'ble Court may please to issue appropriate order/directing/issuing writ of appropriate nature for quashing the tender being unreasonable or arbitrarily, illegal as the same is in order to choose particular tender or blue-eyed boy or have been made without application of mind in facts and circumstances of the case.

iii. That the Hon'ble Court may please to issue appropriate order/directing/issuing writ in the appropriate nature of commanding directing the respondent authority to open the petitioner tender and or to decide the pending application of the petitioner and or direct to re tender the whole tender and or disqualify the respondent no.4 as it is done secretlyand not transparent in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just may also kindly be made including cost of the petition.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a duly registered partnership firm under the Partnership Act, 1932, carrying on the business of large-scale civil construction works including roads, canals, bridges, dams, buildings and allied infrastructure projects for various Government departments such as PWD, PHE, Irrigation and BSNL. The petitioner is a registered “Class-A” contractor with the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh, holding valid registration No. CGeR05968 and GSTIN No. 22AAQFA0154M1ZI, and has successfully executed several Government projects over the years. The present dispute arises out of Tender No. 181787 floated for construction of Kharraghat Anicut/Barrage and Bank Protection Works, having an estimated value of ₹3454.93 lakhs, with earnest money of ₹5 lakhs and contract period of 24 months. The petitioner participated in the said tender process in accordance with the prescribed procedure. However, despite compliance with all eligibility conditions, its technical bid was not opened either physically on 05.01.2026 or reflected on the online portal, contrary to the tender conditions mandating transparent and simultaneous opening of Envelope A and B in the presence of bidders or their authorized representatives. Thereafter, Envelope C (financial bid) was allegedly opened on 13.03.2026 after an unexplained and inordinate delay, and respondent No.4 was declared successful, despite the petitioner being a more competitive bidder. The petitioner, upon making repeated inquiries, was not furnished any written reason for non-opening of its bid, and was only orally informed of its alleged disqualification, which was never communicated in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated 13.04.2026 requesting disclosure of reasons and re-evaluation of its bid, however, no response was provided, thereby reflecting complete non-compliance with principles of natural justice, transparency and fairness governing public procurement.

4. It is further submitted that the entire tender process is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-transparency and mala fides, thereby attracting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent authorities, being instrumentalities of the State, are duty-bound to act fairly, reasonably and in a non-discriminatory manner while dealing with public contracts, as consistently held in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, M