1 2025:CGHC:12758-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1427 of 2025 Arpita Construction A Partnership Firm, Through Its Partner Rishi Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Ramavatar Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Nehru Chowk, Near State Bank Of India, Baradwar, Tehsil- Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Medical Service Corporation Limited, Having Its Office At Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Commercial Complex, 4th Floor, South East Corner, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Engineer Chhattisgarh Medical Service Corporation Limited, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. Having Office At Cg Grih Nirman Mandal, Commercial Complex, 4th Floor, South East Corner, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - M/s Shyam Sundar Agarwal Through Its Proprietor Shyam Sundar Agrawal, Near, Arun Cloth Store, Baradwar, Tehsil- Baradwar, District- Sakti, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.22 10:38:26 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy A.G. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 18/03/2025 1. The petitioner, who is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, has filed the instant writ petition against rejection of his bid and claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition: “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and set-aside the impugned order 4/3/25 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner bid has been rejected and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner bid in accordance with law in the interest of justice. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondents to not proceed further and issue work order to the private respondents in the interest of justice. 10.3) Alternatively, This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash if any work contract/ work order issued in favor of the private respondents by the respondent authorities in the interest of justice. 3 10.4) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.5) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 issued an NIT (notice inviting tender) on 29.08.2024 for construction of CMHO Office Building in District Sakti, Chhattisgarh, including internal water supply, sanitary fitting, electrification work, etc., and the total cost of work was Rs. 178.69 Lakhs. The bid submission start date was 04.09.2024, 17:30 Hrs. and the bid submission due date (online) was 25.09.2024, 17:30 Hrs. The bid opening date was scheduled as 26.09.2024, 11:00 Hrs. As per the clause (2) of the said NIT the bidders are required to mandatorily submit certain documents through online, which are as under: “2. It is mandatory to submit the Following online:- (A) For online Tenders, The Earnest Money (Refundable) and tender processing fees (Non Refundable) of Rupees………….../- shall be deposited Electronically, according to the Clause 3.2.1 of Appendix 2.10 (The earnest money shall be deposited electronically by NEFT/RTGS, internet Banking, Debit/Credit Cards or any other online process of payment. 4 Contractor is required to generate a challan through e-Procurement system for specific tender before transfer of fund and system generated challan may be submitted to bank physically for RTGS/NEFT of contractor may use other online option for making payment in account number shown in the online generated challan.. It is clarified that every contractors challan number will be different or each challan generated form system of different of same tender. The cost of money transfer (including Payment Gateway Commission etc.) has to be borne by the contractor it is advised that the contractors should consider the time taken to process the payment electronically (i.e NEFT/RTGS Net banking Credit/Debit cards). (B) Copy of Valid registration in CGPWD. should be valid till Last Submission date of Tender. (C) Valid Bank Solvency certificate (Not Older than 12 Months from Last Submission date of Tender). Format Attached (Annexure C) (D) Affidavit on Non Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs. 100 in prescribed format attached in N.I.T. Documents (Annexure I) (Scan Original Copy) (E) Power of attorney/Partnership deed (if any). (F) Contractor must be submitted the copy of valid Labour Provident Fund Registration with 5 Employees Provident Fund Organization (Scan Original Copy) (G) Pre contract Integrity Pact on Non Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs. 50 Format Attached (Annexure H) (Scan Original Copy) (H) Information of Bid Capacity (Anex - 1), Existing commitments and ongoing (Anex-2) Bid Capacity Affidavit (Anex- 3) in prescribed format attached. (Bid Capacity Folder)” 3. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that as per the conditions stipulated in the NIT, he has submitted all the required documents through online mode. On 15.01.2025, the petitioner received a communication from the respondent authorities stating therein that there is a discrepancy in the word and figures of the amount in the bank solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner and sought clarification with this regard. Immediately thereafter, on 16.01.2025, he communicated with the bank, get it clarified that by clerical mistake, in place of Rs. 30 Lakhs, Rs. 3 Lakhs was mentioned in the solvency certificate issued on 20.08.2024 and it should be read as Rs. 30 Lakhs and on the same date, submitted it to the office of respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner was communicated with the impugned dated 04.03.2025 stating that on 15.01.2025, he was asked to submit his clarification, but the clarification submitted by him is not in accordance with the terms and condition of the NIT and therefore, his bid is being treated as disqualified and cannot be opened, therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 6 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not the mistake committed by the petitioner, but the mistake committed by the bank authorities, who have issued the solvency certificate to the petitioner. The communication dated 15.01.2025 has duly been answered on 16.01.2025 and submitted the clarification to the concerned authorities after getting it correct from the concerned bank, yet his bid has been disqualified. The discrepancies in words and figures, the preference should be given in words, which shows that the petitioner was having a solvency certificate of Rs. 30 Lakhs, but on hyper-technical grounds, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected. Rejection of the petitioner’s bid by the respondent authorities is arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the bid of the petitioner in the case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as respondents No. 2 and 3, on advance copy, would submit that the petitioner was required to submit the documents through online mode. When the clarification was not uploaded through online mode, it cannot be considered as sufficient compliance, as in the communication dated 15.01.2025, he was asked to submit his clarification through e-mail/online mode, but he has not submitted the same by the said e-mail/online mode, therefore, considering the incomplete tender document submitted by the petitioner, his bid was disqualified, which is strictly in accordance with law and the petitioner does not have any merit in the present petition. 7 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the NIT was issued on 29.08.2024 and the bid submission due date was 25.09.2024 and the bid was to be submitted by the bidders through online mode including the requisition documents as mentioned in clause (2) of the said NIT. Though the petitioner has submitted his bid along with the documents, but certain discrepancies have been found in the solvency certificate issued by the State Bank of India, Baradwar branch, District Janjgir-Champa that there are differences in words and figures of the amount shown in the solvency certificate. A communication was also made on 15.01.2025 that the petitioner can rectify such discrepancy and submit his clarification within two days through e-mail/online mode, otherwise, his bid will not be opened and will be treated as disqualified. The petitioner has not submitted his clarification through e-mail/online mode but alleged that he has submitted the required documents to the office of respondent No.3 on 16.01.2025, but admittedly not through online mode. When the condition of the NIT stipulates that all the documents have to be submitted through online mode and in the communication dated 15.01.2025 it has been asked the petitioner to submit his clarification through e-mail/online mode, he has not chosen to do so. 8. Be that as it may, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent authorities for want of requisite documents as per the terms and conditions of the NIT. The rejection of the bid entails civil 8 consequences having various facets including various factual aspects, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition and to grant relief to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved