Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Satish Kumar Bohidar – Appellant
Versus
South Eastern Coalfields Limited – Respondent
WPC No. 3290 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashutosh Mishra
For the Respondents: H.S. Ahluwalia
A party participating in a tender process without prior objection to the terms is estopped from challenging those conditions after being unsuccessful, under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, especially when claims are mutually contradictory.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the legality of a tender process initiated via NIT No. SECL/RAIGARH/ GM/CIVIL/e-TENDER/2025/39 and the subsequent Letter of Acceptance issued to a private respondent. The petitioner alleged ambiguity in the eligibility criteria regarding work experience, citing inconsistencies between Clause 8(A) of the NIT and Clause 4 Note-2 of the Special Terms and Conditions, and contended that the successful bidder did not meet the prescribed criteria. The primary issue was whether the alleged ambiguity in the tender conditions vitiated the process and whether the petitioner, having participated in the tender, could challenge those conditions after being unsuccessful. The court reasoned that the petitioner's claims were mutually destructive, as one cannot simultaneously call a condition ambiguous while seeking its strict enforcement to disqualify another party. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, noting that a party who participates in a tender without demur is estopped from challenging the conditions after a negative outcome. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tender process and letter of acceptance based on ambiguous eligibility criteria. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contention regarding contradictory tender clauses and violation of article 14. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. defense based on estoppel and compliance with evaluation procedures. (Para 8) |
| 4. doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevents challenging terms after participation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. limited scope of judicial review in commercial decisions and lack of proof of mala fides. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. dismissal of writ petition for lack of merit. (Para 15 , 16) |
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the SECL/respondents No.1 & 2.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the tender process initiated pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. SECL/RAIGARH/ GM/CIVIL/e-TENDER/2025/39 dated 20.08.2025 issued by respondent No.2 – South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), whereby bids were invited for hiring seven air-conditioned light motor vehicles for deployment with the Tripura State Rifles (TSR) at various locations under SECL, Raigarh Area. The petitioner has also questioned the Letter of Acceptance dated 27.03.2026 issued in favour of the private respondent and has further prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to initiate a fresh tender process after removing the alleged ambiguity in the eligibility criteria relating to work experience. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
"10.1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the entire tender process initiated pursuant to NIT No. SECL/RAIGARH/ GM/CIVIL/e-TENDER/2025/39 dated 20.08.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 for hiring of seven air-conditioned light motor vehicles for deployment with the Tripura State Rifles (TSR), SECL Raigarh Area;
10.2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 27.03.2026 issued in favour of the private respondent pursuant to the aforesaid tender process;
10.3. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to initiate a fresh tender process after removing the ambiguity and inconsistencies relating to the eligibility criteria and work experience requirements contained in the tender documents;
10.4. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered proprietorship concern engaged in the business of transportation and vehicle hiring services. Pursuant to the aforesaid NIT dated 20.08.2025, the petitioner participated in the tender process by submitting its technical and financial bids along with work completion certificates evidencing execution of similar works.
4. According to the petitioner, the tender contemplated schedule-wise award of contracts and determination of L-1 separately for each schedule. It is the case of the petitioner that while Clause 8(A) of the NIT prescribed eligibility with reference to the aggregate estimated value of the tender, Clause 4 Note-2 of the Special Terms and Conditions stipulated that in cases of schedule-wise evaluation, the work experience and financial turnover were required to be assessed separately with reference to each schedule, thereby creating an apparent inconsistency in the tender conditions.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such ambiguity, the respondents proceeded with the evaluation process and ultimately declared the private respondent as L-1 in all the schedules. The petitioner submitted a representation raising objections to the eligibility of the private respondent, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, upon obtaining information under the Right to Informatio
