1 2025:CGHC:843-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 37 of 2025 1 - M/s Asharam Paper, A Registered Proprietorship Firm, Through its Proprietor, Ankit Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Ramesh Agrawal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o E - 7, Ground Floor, Shriram Colony, Behind the Stadium, Near Judeo Garden, Beladula, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Service Development Commissioner Office, Development Bhawan, Sector - 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Service Division Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Lekhram Sao S/o Shri Sadhuram Sao, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Gadhumariya, P.S. and Tahsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner – Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For State-Respondents – Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07-01-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 13-12-2024 passed by respondent No.3 claiming the following relief:- “10.1] That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the present case/tender. 10.2] That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant writ petition and quash the rejection order of bid application of the petitioner and direct the respondent authority to reconsider the tender application of the petitioner as per law, in the interest of justice. 10.3] That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to reject the techno commercial bid and price bid of the respondent no. 4 in the interest of justice; `10.4] That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Cancel the E-Tender bearing Tender No. 1647, E- Tender No. 161097 (Annex. P-3) and the respondent no. 3 may kindly be directed to issue fresh NIT for execution of work, in the interest of justice. 10.5] That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper.” 3 2. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleading of the writ petition are that, the petitioner is proprietorship firm carrying business in the field of civil construction work. Respondent No.2 issued tender for construction of Mahtari Sadan at various places within District Raigarh and District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh on 11-11- 2024 bearing E-tender No.1647. The last date of submission of e- tender application was 28-11-2024, last date for delivery of earnest money, technical document and Pre-contract Integrated Pact was 03-12-2024 and the date of opening of tender was 04- 12-2024. Considering the fulfillment of all eligibility criteria under the NIT the petitioner has also submitted his online application form and also it submitted hard copy of the documents as required under the NIT. On 13-12-2024 the petitioner received a notice through e-mail whereby it is informed that his tender form has been rejected on the ground of mistake in submission of Annexure-J. On 16-12-2024 the petitioner made a representation before respondent No.3 stating therein that the condition of signature of two witnesses was not mandatory and the tender was not opened on 04-12-2024 which was the date mentioned in the NIT, but without considering his representation, the tender was opened on 16-12-2024 and respondent No.4 was found lowest bidder and the tender was allotted in his favour. The petitioner has also made a detailed representation before respondent No.2 which is still pending and therefore, 4 against illegal rejection of his tender form he filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defect shown in his tender form is the non-signing of the witnesses in the affidavit of Annexure-J which was a Pre-contract Integrated Pact which was absolutely not required before signing of the contract and although he submitted his affidavit in the format of Annexure-J (Pre-contract Integrated Pact), but the same has not been considered by the authorities and merely on this ground that his affidavit is defective his tender form has been rejected. He would further submit that the tender was to be opened on 04-12-2024, whereas the same was opened on 13-12-2024 without there being any information or intimation of time of opening the tender. He would further submit that his representation has not been considered by the authorities before opening the tender on 16-12- 2024 and therefore, the entire process of tender in question is tainted and the action of the respondent authorities are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that as per the condition No.8.2 of the tender form, it was a binding condition upon the petitioner to submit Annexure-J (Pre-contract Integrated Pact). The Annexure-J (Pre-contract Integrated Pact) is a pre-bid contract agreement which has to be submitted along with the tender form by the petitioner, but he has not submitted his tender form in accordance with Annexure-J and 5 there is no signature of its witnesses. Since the tender form of the petitioner was not filled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender form, his tender form was rejected on 13- 12-2024 and therefore, the petitioner has no equity in his favour to extend any relief to him. He would further submit that on 04-12- 2024 the tender was opened on the fixed date, but the Executive Engineer was transferred vide order dated 05-12-2024 and therefore, the technical bid was opened on 13-12-2024 which was informed to the petitioner vide memo dated 16-12-2024. Therefore, the petition has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From the documents annexed with the petition and from condition No.8.2 of the tender form, it is quite vivid that all the conditions of the tender notice is binding upon the parties and the submission of Annexure-J (Pre-contract Integrated Pact) was an integral part of the contract document and since it was a pre-bid contract and required to submit at the time of submission of tender form, the petitioner is bound to comply with the condition and to submit the same with the tender form. He cannot escape by saying that since the tender has not been allotted to him and the said agreement is required to be submitted at the time when the agreement is to be executed after allotment of the tender. Non-submission of the pre- bid contract agreement in the form Annexure-J (Pre-contract 6 Integrated Pact) is definitely a deficiency in the submission of tender form for which the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the tender form of the petitioner, in which we do not find any perversity or illegality. Further, the explanation of date of opening of technical bid has already been explained vide memo dated 16-12-2024 issued by respondent No.3 which also cannot be found faulty. 7. In the result, we do not find sufficient ground to allow the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil